HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1331 OF 2001 DATED 27th August, 2013 BETWEEN Syed Mallik and anr ….Appellants And The Sngareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director and ors …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1331 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: ( per AM.J.) This Writ Appeal is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 3.9.1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 16841 of 1992 by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the request of the appellants to place/promote them in Technical ‘A” Grade on par with the fourth respondent was turned down. The appellants and other Petitioners in the aforesaid Writ Petition as well as the fourth respondent were initially appointed as Clerks Grade-II in the respondents-Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Along with fourth respondent, the appellants and petitioners in the Writ Petition were serially promoted and ultimately they were promoted to the post of Special Grade Clerks, which post is equivalent to the post of Technical ‘B’ Grade. Their next promotion is Office Superintendent which is equivalent to the post of ‘Technical ‘A’ Grade subject to passing of the necessary test. It is the case of the appellants that the promotion from the post of Special Grade Clerk to Technical ‘A’ Grade would be effected on the basis of seniority, subject to passing of test with eight years experience and availability of vacancies. While so, the fourth respondent, who was admittedly junior to the appellants and other petitioners in the Writ Petition, was promoted to the post of Technical ‘A’ Grade with effect from 1.9.1992. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants and other similarly situated persons made representation to the respondent authorities requesting to place them also in the post of Technical ‘A’ Grade on par with the fourth respondent and when there was no response on the said representation, they approached this Court through the aforementioned Writ Petition, which was dismissed through the order under appeal, holding that such promotion was effected to the fourth respondent as he had passed the qualifying examination and as per the settlements dated 19.1.1981, 3.3.1989 and 10.10.1987 arrived at in between the management and the Trade Union. Dissatisfied with the said decision, two of the Petitioners in the Writ Petition are before us. The learned Counsel for the appellants mainly contended that inasmuch as the promotion of the fourth respondent to the post of Technical ‘A’ Grade is not by way of promotion but only an adjustment, he is not entitled to time scale attached to the said promotional post. He asserted that dismissal of earlier Writ Petition NO. 5769 of 1981 cannot operate as res judicate to the impugned Writ Petition. He further asserted that promotion of the fourth respondent to the post of Technical ‘A’ Grade, who is stated to be a junior to the appellants and other similarly situated persons, cannot be held to be valid as it would affect and offend the claim of the other similarly situated persons who are appellants and other Petitioners in the Writ Petition. He therefore prayed that the Writ Appeal may be allowed. Perused the record scrupulously. Admittedly, after the fourth respondent was promoted from the post Clerk Grade-I to the post of Technical ‘C’ Grade having regard to the technical knowledge he possessed in electronic stencil cutter, when compared to the seniors to him, who are the appellants and other similarly situated persons. Aggrieved thereby, the latter have earlier filed Writ Petition No. 5769 of 1981 wherein, though this Court initially suspended the appointment of the fourth respondent as stated supra, ultimately the said Writ Petition was dismissed upholding the promotion of the fourth respondent to the post of Technical ‘C’ Grade and the said decision was allowed to obtain finality. As such, the promotion of the fourth respondent to the post of Technical ‘C’ Grade was confirmed. Thereafter, some settlements arrived at in between the management of the respondent-Singareni Collieries and Trade Union on 19.1.1981, 3.3.1989 and 10.10.1987 wherein promotion from the post of Assistant Technical Grade ‘C’ to Assistant Technical Grade ‘B” which is a time bound promotion is also one of the issues in the alleged settlements. Subsequently, in terms of the alleged settlements, the fourth respondent was promoted from the post of Technical ‘C’ to Technical ‘A’ Grade. Though the plea of the appellants that the judgment in Writ petition No. 5769 of 1981 does not operate as res judicata, the fact remains that by the time the fourth respondent was promoted to the post of Technical ‘A’ Grade from the post of Technical ‘B’ Grade, the appellants and other similarly situated writ petitioners were in the cadre of Technical Grade ‘B’ and as such, there is no basis for the latter to seek the relief that they too be placed in the posts of Technical Grade ‘A’ on par with the fourth respondent. Further, it is to be seen that it is not the case of the appellants that they too have necessary technical qualifications. Thus the appellants have no foundation in their contention to seek the relief that they be placed in Technical ‘A’ Grade on par with fourth respondents by moving one grade in between Technical Grades ‘A’ and ‘B’. That being the factual scenario obtaining in the matter, there is no reason in the contention of the appellants which cannot be countenanced. A careful reading of the impugned order manifestly reflects that the learned single Judge considered at the aspects of the matter in the right perspective and rightly dismissed the writ petition. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the light of discussion made herein above, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order which we uphold accordingly. Consequently we do not see any merit in the Writ Appeal which is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any shall dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Dated 27th August, 2013. Msnro