IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 19774 of 2006(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.K.LENIN, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATORS, PROCESS DEPARTMENT, FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL PRODUCTION UNIT. 2. P.RAMACHANDRAN, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR, PROCESS DEPARTMENT, FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL PRODUCTION UNIT. 3. T.R.VENUGOPAL, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR, PROCESS DEPARTMENT, FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL PRODUCTION UNIT. 4. C.SANKAR, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR, PROCESS DEPARTMENT, FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL PRODUCTION UNIT. 5. J.JOHN, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR, PROCESS DEPARTMENT, FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL PRODUCTION UNIT. 6. P.B.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR, PROCESS DEPARTMENT, FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL PRODUCTION UNIT. 7. B.RAJENDRAN, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR, PROCESS DEPARTMENT, FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL PRODUCTION UNIT. 8. B.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR, PROCESS DEPARTMENT, FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL PRODUCTION UNIT. 9. A.S.SATHEESAN, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR, PROCESS DEPARTMENT, FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL PRODUCTION UNIT. 10. THULASIDAS, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR, PROCESS DEPARTMENT, FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL PRODUCTION UNIT. BY ADV. SMT. DHANYA P. ASHOKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONEL), FACT LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL POST,ERNAKULAM. 3. TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, (HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT), FACT LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL POST,ERNAKULAM. 4. C.A.DAVIS AM (QA), SULPHATE PLANT, FACT LTD.,UDYOGAMANDAL. 5. C.SEKAR, PROCESS CHEMIST, PHOSPHATE PLANT, FACT LTD.,UDYOGAMANDAL. 6. JOHNY JOSEPH, SENIOR CHEMIST, POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT, FACT LTD.,UDYOGAMANDAL. 7. BOBACHAN FRANCIS.M, SENIOR CHEMIST, OLD AMONIA PLANT, FACT LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL. 8. G.AJITH, SENIOR CHEMIST, ACID PLANT, FACT LTD.,UDYOGAMANDAL. 9. M.S.VENUGOPAL, SENIOR CHEMIST, ACID PLANT, FACT LTD.,UDYOGAMANDAL. 10. N.GEIGY, SENIOR CHEMIST, PNEUMATIC PLANT FACT LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL. 11. SIMON JOSEPH, SENIOR CHEMIST, PNEUMATIC PLANT, FACT LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL. 12. S.SUKUMAR, ASST. MANAGER (PRODUCTION), ACID PLANT, FACT LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL. ADV. SMT.P.M.SWAYAM PRABHA FOR R4,7-11 SMT.R.ASALATHA VARMA FOR R4,7,8,9,10,11 SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN FOR R12 SRI.R.SREERAJ FOR R12 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1,R2,R3 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 19774 OF 2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the order dt. 11.3.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P2: True copy of the representation dt. 24.3.2004 to the 3rd respondent by the petitioners and others. Ext.P3: True copy of the order dated 11.1.06 transferring the 12th respondent and another. Ext.P4: True copy of the representation dt. 11.3.2006 to the 1st respondent by the petitioners and others. Ext.P5: True copy of the relevant portion containing clause 30 & 31 of the Recruitment and Promotion policy of the company. Ext.P6: True copy of the relevant portion containing clause 22 of the Recruitment and Promotion policy of the company. Ext.P7: True copy of the records of production achievements for the year 2001 dated 1.2.2001. Ext.P8: True copies of the assessment record of the performance of 1st petitioner for the years 2001 to 2006. Ext.P9: True copy of the extract of the Log book showing the duties discharged by the 1st petitioner. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: Ext.R2(a): True copy of the order dated D.O. No. 112/3.2001-HR dated 25.11.2002 issued by the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 19774 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are presently working as Production Engineers under the first respondent. They approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition when, ignoring their legitimate right for being considered for promotion to the post of Production Engineers, 12 others who were juniors to them working in other departments were granted promotion on temporary basis. They seek the following reliefs: i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Exts.P1 and P3 as illegal and unsustainable in law. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to consider the right of petitioners to be promoted and issue orders promoting them to the layer I position in the existing vacancies in the Process Department with effect from the date of occurrence of vacancies. 2. Admittedly, the petitioners were subsequently granted promotion to the post of Production Engineer with effect from 1.4.2008. Therefore, W.P.(C) No. 19774/2006 2 the only grievance that persists is regarding the inaction on the part of the official respondents in not granting the said promotion with retrospective effect and with notional benefits, as was done in the case of other employees in certain other departments under the first respondent. 3. The vacancies claimed by the petitioners arose in the year 2001. Admittedly, the petitioners were qualified for promotion on the date of occurrence of the vacancies. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent would reveal that promotion on regular basis were not effected on account of a ban on promotions. In the said circumstances, the above posts were filled up on temporary basis. The petitioners filed a reply affidavit. In paragraph 11 of the reply affidavit, the petitioners specifically contended that their rights could not be affected in any manner by the deputation orders as they were admittedly made only on temporary basis. According to them, in the said circumstances, the official respondents were bound to consider their entitlement for promotion with retrospective effect and with notional benefits with effect from the date on which those vacancies actually arose. It is their further contention that there is no reason to decline such consideration as the official respondents had themselves considered the cases of similarly situated persons in other departments. Though these facts are not disputed in the counter affidavit, W.P.(C) No. 19774/2006 3 I feel that the entitlement of the petitioners to get promotion with retrospective effect is a matter which has to be considered, at the first instance, by the first respondent and that it is only proper that at the time of such consideration, due weight is given to the contention that persons in other departments were granted promotion with retrospective effect with notional benefits, after the lifting of the ban on promotions. 4. In the circumstances, the petitioners are directed to submit a representation before the first respondent expatiating their grievances on the subject within a period of three weeks from today. In case such representations are received from the petitioners, the competent authority among respondents 1 to 3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) No. 19774/2006 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 19774/2006 JUDGMENT 20th October, 2009