W THE UIGH COUKt OFJUDICATURl!; A^ Bll-^SPUR: CHHATTISGARH W.P. N0. ^ 11 OF 2002 .*• Pstitionsrs Oft(arfr*fc- Pnmm?7nt ^A't ^HTT R.N..Ramawat ased about :•& icars. roretiiaii iiivnargc, South Eastera Coalfie'ds Ltd. Bhateaon Area. Distt.Sureuia Chhanissi.ii'h. 2. (j.K.Mohan- S/oShnG.Surva Rao, ageu aboui 37 yeara, 17rt»'<a»Y>»>nTtlftlTa-m^1 (jevra Area ^••'•^s- >.-**;"iSr>^-1.1' ^-<y^>11'^ ^3& d.>.ad .»*• .•). 4. RaieevAvasthr S/o Shn P.K.Avasthi, aged about 36 years, Foreman Incharee Gevm /Vrea V S-~""..'c »?;"V Stl^cho.^n J^i..iJ:litlAVtAO- t^;\J. j.^.iJFll^OUtA^AJtl Aj!ed aboiit 36 vears- t-oreman inciiarae. urevra r-U^d. ^ Viiav &>tianna 5/o Lr.L. Shanisa. aged abouf 34 vears Fonnaii Incharee,Bishrampur ^Jftrtr'si. ^pven?* Si/o J ( isaxena Aeed about J2 vears Forman Incharge, Bishrauipur T'!-..-.:-.-..-... D %-. T D.-. ,->--,-.•,- iiiomay r. a/o i .i-appy A.ssd yboist 3S- ves1rs •s? .i.^.".'-^- »»i•-- •-• _; w t'breman Incharee SECL.Cmraiuri 8. S.UhabalS/o S.Uhabal aaeu aDoui..?» vears . Forsman InchargsS 2- ^. f. Btiattaciiaiva S/o M.DhattacliaTv'a Atifid about 29 veurs roreman Incliarae /~<t- °...'-.-- "^' ^-runaiii"! •<" 0. K.P. Singh S/o (.Fttam Siugh, aged about 28 years,Foresaan Incharse, Chinmin ]] Shridhar Gouraha S/o Bhagirathi Gouraha Ased about 35 vear.s Forssnan Incharge Bailcunthpur Area. Respondents VFRS1TS <•> •* «~*vtn +TI ^^ii«*llAAAClAl- Cna! Jndia Liniited CaiuuTta. DirectorfPersonnel'i Coal Inuia Ltd. Calcutta. 3. 4. ^hainiian t-;uin Managing r^—^^+^^A?I L/ll^t/fcUi. t3£^\^jL. Bil^.snur> G^iietul Nlsiitigsr T<x?*cii!fiv?' F^tahii'Ehm^nif- SliCL. bilaspur. ./- WR[T PETITION UNDER^VITICLE I'SSR.l" Gf CONSTITUTION OF INIXlA FOi^lSStlANcE Oi< OR^feftS TT1<sTTt??o 1Es.rr>Y'nr /^r? ii-r * ^rrk A x.rTTo Jl"liU£-K. WtUl U.? B'iAlTIUAlviUa. HIGHG(M}I QF>0HHMTIgQftR»AT®ILft!SRUR Writ Pfctition No. 41i^f2002 Petitionera Deepak Ramawat& othCTs Versus Respondaits Chainnaxi, Coal India Lunited & ofhers Pbst fi>r order onM^IarcU, 2006. -&- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURTOF CHHAniSOARK AT BILASPUR WritPetitionNo. 411 of 2002 Petitioners Deepak Rainawat & ofhers Versus Respondents ettairnnan, Coal IndiaLmuted & ofhera Sin^e Bench : HonTsle Mr. Justice Satlsll K. AgnUiotart. Stui Gaiitain Bhadi.in, coiinselforfhepetitioners. Shri Praveen Das, counscl for fhe respoiidents. WB D E R ( ^5^teroh, 2006) The folkwing order ofthe Court was passed by Sgtlsb K.-Agniltotri, J.. The present petitfon filcdunderArticle 226/227 of the Coastitution of Iiulia seeks a directibn a^inst the respoiidents thstt! the petitk>ners be considered fbr pTonabtion from fhe non-execulave to executivc cadre atong wifh cmplpyees of fhe ofher departmental oigauizattons. It is fiu-therstated that fhe respoiidents toe diTccted to compty with then- poli^ of p^^ the E-1 ti^ |E-5 Execiitiye Gadre. AltErnatively, fhe petitioners be granted lipgher ! •; psy scale. | i i •. Tlie fects in niitsheU are fhat the petitioneis were^ Wol^ing[ as '•t-:l FoBeinfln (teGluucal and^ siipcrvision pf Qradc-B) wiftt lljthe respoiideiit-Co|mpaay - Soufh Eastem Coal Ficlds I£.td.^in|;ithe departaiMits of electitmK: amljAelefeom, taiown as,e^ The petittODers arci eatitled; ^ ipnomot^^ executive cSv3xeW:'^ae'ext!isvS ^''(^S]!e.^as pcxt:^ac IpolacgCi(ftaitliE^iBBe; P/l) flAuch isiapplicablc tDifhjcteiBploy^s crf'te ot^ K.^; airisi: li:l^^ 1 1: li'ii' (1:1!- t}l and fhe petitioners being ineinbera of technical and supervision departments have no promotional avenucs to the post of the executive cadre whea the eiaployees workiiig in other departinents are entitled to the proinotion to the executive cadre. Shri Gautam Bhadttri, leamed couusel appearing for thc petitioners submits that as fhere was no avenue for proinotion Qxiva the post of foremaa ia the electTonic trade to the bigfa.er rank i.e. executive cadre, fhe petitioners and othcr smulady situatcd ofl5cera made representatiou to the Respondent No.l. The Respondent No.l having coasidered atl fhe aspects decided to give promotion to the diploina holders employees in fhe electronic trade at par wifh the Excavation aad Mining diploiaa holders by cucular dated 18.12.1997 (Anncxure P/2). Leamed counsel further subniits fhat despite the policy decision dated 18.7.1997 not a single eniployee belonging to the electroDic trade working as foremau (techiucal and supervision ofGrade-A) in electronic trade has beeu considered aud promoted to fhe higher cadre so far. Shri Praveen Das, leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondeuts submitted fhat the respondents have ckarly stated ia their wntten affidavits as under:- "It is submitted that all fhe etigible caxididates are considered for their departmental proinotion to fhe executive cadre post fhroi^h an uitemal circular which are issued by the respondent uo.l dependiag upou availability of vacancies. As already subinitted ia earlier paragraphes, CIL had resorted to such selectiou process for considering the candidature ofeUgible dcpartmenlal candidates of Foremaii-Incharge (E & T) to the Executive Cadre Post ia E-l/E-2 Gr. And 12 no. of candidates were promotcd ^ainst such iatemal circulara after observn^ aU procediiral fonnalities.'' ^,- 6^ 6, And further, that:- "Respondent no. 1 is not in a position to consider the promotion of non-executive to the executive cadre post as there is no vacaacy availabte." Having heard leamed counsel for both fhe parties and having peruscd fhe records,. it is apparent fhat fhe circular dated 18.12.1997 (Annexure P/2) is appUcabfc to the petitioners also as they are workiag as foremaa (technical and supervision) in electronic tra.de. Leamed counsel for fhe respondents has clearity admitted fhat as and when vacancy arises, the case of tfae petitioneis woiild be coHsidered for promotion to the tughcr post at par wifh fhe excavation aad inining diploma holders. It is weU setfled prmciple of law fhat fhe Court cannot direct to create posts and promote fhe einployees/officers directfy to the higher posts, However, a directfou 'can be issued to the respondents for consideration of the cases of fhe pctitioners, when adniittedfy fhe circular dated 18th Deceinber, 1997 also provides for proiaotion of the electrouic diplonia holders at par witfa thc cxcavation and mimng diploma holders. It is weU settled fhat fhe proinotion teeiug a condition of servicc and having regard to the reqiureinent thereof it is expccted tfaat the einptoyer should have followcd the pruiciples as laid dcwn by the Supreinc Coiut in the case of State of Trlpura aad others Vs. K. K. Roy (2004 AIR SCW l) which reads as unden- 6. ..............................Proiaotion being a condition of semce and having regaid to fhe requirements fhcreof as has been pointed out by this Court in the decisions referred to hereinbefore, it was expected fhat the Appcllaat should faave foUowed the said principle.2' 7. In fhe present case fherc is no dispute fhat fhe respondents is a State wifhia the laeaning of Article 12 of fhe Constitution of India and fhe respoadents have already considered ttus aspect while issuiag circiilar dated 18.12. 1997 (Annexure P/2). 8. For fhe above-stated reasons, the petition is aUowed and fhe respoudents are directed to considef the cases of fhe petitioners in. accordance wifh the circular dated l8.12.1997(Aiuiexure P/2) issued by the Respondent No. 1 for proinotion to fhc executive cadre ia accordance vsT.fh law, subject to ayailability of poste. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur