Deepak Kumar Kasture v. The Bharat Heavy Electricals

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.11.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P.(MD)No. 3992 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2014

1. Deepak Kumar Kasture

2. P.Mayakrishnan

3. R.Muthukrishnan

4. A.Arumugam

5. K.Paramesh

6. K.Duraivelu

7. E.Saravana Kumar

8. N.Senthil

9. K.Ramamoorthy

10. M.Ramesh

11. Neela Lohit

12. M.Ananth

13. N.Kumar

14. Antony Jain 15.D.Rajkumar

16. A.Balachandar

17. C.Parthiban 1/14

18. K.Selvendran

19. K.Mahendran

20. Rohi Tashan Jatav

21. C.Prasath

22. M.Ananda Sathyavan

23. T.Esakkimuthu

24. V.Muthiah

25. C.Raju

26. Raja Sekaran

27. T.Kathirvel

28. P.Karumbachalam

29. C.Sivakumar

30. T.Siva Chandran

31. R.Raj Kumar

32. M.Natarajan

33. Samayanathan

34. Prabhakaran

35. R.V.Senthil Kumar

36. Suresh Kumar 37.Sathya Seelan

38. S.Selventhiran

39. V.Sakthivel

40. P.Anbarasan

41. P.Atul Raj

42. P.Sivapirakasan 2/14

43. M.Manmathan

44. A.Mariappan

45. Kuldeep Singh

46. R.Ponnu Durai

47. K.Thiyagarajan

48. S.Partaa Sarathy

49. N.Selvam

50. C.Nanthan

51. S.Rajesh

52. A.Arun Kumar

53. S.Gajendran

54. A.Raja

55. T.Vellimalai Prabu

56. J.Varatharajan

57. Murugan

58. Prabakaran

59. Prabhu

60. V.Senthil Murugan

61. M.Muniraj

62. R.Srinivasa Madhavan

63. P.Kathiresan

64. R.Sidharthan

65. S.Jaganathan

66. C.Manavalan

67. M.Ganesh Kannan 3/14

68. R.Rajaskaran

69. N.Manian

70. S.Jaya Kumar

71. C.Srinivasan

72. C.Karunanithi

73. S.Kanagarajan

74. R.Masanam

75. S.Pandia Raja

76. G.Maheshwaran

77. M.Muniasamy

78. P.Jeyaraman

79. S.Senkuttuvan

80. V.Praveen Kumar

81. V.Sathish

82. A.Naveen Kumar

83. M.Sasikumar

84. Silambarasan

85. Mohan Kumar Yemineni

86. P.Maharaja

87. K.Arun Kumar

88. D.Muthu Sankara Babu

89. R.Nedumaran

90. K.Pitchai

91. I.Jeyakumar

92. C.Rishi Kesan 4/14

93. S.Sivathanu Pillai

94. R.Karuppaiah

95. Amrendra Kumar

96. T.Selva Kumar

97. R.Vinoth

98. J.Stalin

99. K.Mathikanthan

100. R.Arangasamy

101. N.Sathish Rajan

102. P.Nagaraju

103. P.Srinivasa Kumar

104. K.Dileep Kumar

105. AV.Vijayan

106. A.Syam Kumar

107. Santhosh Kumar Singh

108. S.Kathiresa Bharathi

109. T.Yesudhas

110. R.M.Yoganantham

111. M.Krishna Selvan

112. S.Raja Kumar

113. Raghnath Singh

114. S. Muthu

115. T.Karthikeyan

116. M.Sudhakar

117. K. Rajadurai 5/14

118. T. Sreedharan

119. G. Vetrivel

120. M. Anandhasiva

121. P. Jayachandraiah

122. M.T. Raja

123. S. Nagamani Kandan

124. K. Kalimuthu

125. S.Jagatheessan

126. K.Thirumalai

127. K. Senthil Kumar

128. V. Kalaiarasan

129. S. Balakrishnan

130. P. Femilraj

131. S. Senthil Kumar

132. R. Charles

133. N. Sivamani

134. M. Bharathi Raja

135. C. Devakrishnan

136. P. Prakash

137. A. Suresh

138. A. Sathish

139. I. Jaya Sebastian

140. S. Guru

141. P. Ganesh Kumar

142. E.V. Guru Sankar 6/14

143. Raju Keshavji Baujade

144. Dhas Rahul Abasaheb

145. R. Krishna Kumar

146. P. Sekar Nallahambi

147. J. Saravanan

148. R. Ganapathy

149. K. Bala Sankar

150. S. Peter Devadoss

151. R. Ramesh Kumar

152. M.Mahendra Selvan

153. K. C.Manikannan

154. V. Sasikumar

155. R. Yogaraj

156. P. Srinivasan

157. R.Anandha Kumar

158. Abhishesh Kumar Chaubey

159. T.Sathish Kumar

160. R. Ganesan

161. R. Venkateshwaran

162. V. Mariappan

163. A.S.Suresh

164. C. Sivashankara

165. R. Sivamuthu Kumaran

166. P. Prakash

167. Anuj Kumar 7/14

168. Sohan Singh Chauhan

169. K. Ramesh

170. R.Ganesh

171. N. Thamizhanban

172. R. Anbu Raja

173. L Aribalan

174. V.K. Srinivasan

175. Rakesh Kumar ...

Petitioners Vs.

1. The Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, Human Resources Management, Trichy -14.

2. The Executive Engineer, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy - 14.

3. The Director, Human Resources, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Corporate Office, Sirifort, New Delhi - 110 049.

4. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai - 4.

5. The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

8/14

6. The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

....

Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to give placement to the petitioners as Supervisory Grade of SB-I in SI equivalent to Assistant Officer HRD-II who have similar qualification and experience requirement in the office of 1st respondent organization with all attendant service benefits. [Prayer amended as per order,dated 09.07.2014] For Petitioners : M/S.M.V.Venkateseshan For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.A.V.Arun For R-4 : Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate For R-3, R-5 & R-6: No Appearance

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuing Writ of Mandamus, seeking direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to give placement to the petitioners, as Supervisory Grade of SB-I in S.I., equivalent to Assistant Officer HRD-II, who have similar qualification and experience requirement in the office of 1st respondent organization with all attendant service benefits. 9/14

2. Heard M/S.M.V.Venkateseshan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.P.Thambidurai, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the 4th respondent.

3. The writ petitioners are Ex-employees of CSF and other Armed Forces and Police personnels etc. The Writ petitioners have applied and participated in selection process and were selected. The respondents organization has provided offer of appointment, by fixing the scale of pay Rs.11,700-23,000. After receiving the offer, the petitioners have accepted and joined service. After completing four years of service, the petitioners have submitted a representation to the respondents organization claiming that there is a disparity in their pay comparing with the same cadre in the other organization.

4. The second claim of the writ petitioners is that they were posted as Worker Cadre inspite of posting them in Supervisor Cadre. 10/14

5. The petitioners have relied on the notification issued in the Website during the selection process, wherein, it is stated that Lateral Entry/Experienced Persons.

6. The second evidence relied on by the petitioners is that the recruitment policy of the respondents organization. In Annexure, it is stated that the 'B' security services, the job requirement for the said post for the supervision of the other security officers. Based on these two grounds, the petitioners submitted their claim.

7. The respondents have submitted that, in the same recruitment policy, the petitioners were categorized under the induction level and level (3) in the recruitment policy. Nowhere, the respondents have stated that the petitioners were recruited in the "Supervisor cadre". The work of the petitioners are to supervision, but it is induction level (3). Since the work has supervision, the 11/14

name cannot be taken as "Supervisor Cadre." In only indicates the job assigned to the petitioners.

8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the claim of the petitioners. If the petitioners claim is entertained, that will be interfering in the policy of the respondent organization. The Judicial review is limited in policy decision. There is no perversity in the policy decision.

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 16.11.2022 Internet : Yes ksa 12/14

To The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai - 4.

13/14

S.SRIMATHY, J ksa Order made in W.P.(MD)No.3992 of 2014 16.11.2022 14/14