B.Omana Kuttan v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ....

PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH WP.CT/55/2023 B. OMANA KUTTAN ...

PETITIONER VS.

THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...

RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Ms. Anjili Nag For the Union of India : Mr. Tulsi Lall For the Administration : Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi Heard on : July 9, 2024 Judgment on : July 9, 2024 JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.

1.

This is the third round of litigation at the behest of the petitioner who is working as an Armature Winder and seeks to be treated on par with Electrician for promotion as Chargeman (Electrical). 2.

Facts giving rise to the instant proceeding are as follows:-

3.

Petitioner had joined as Mazdoor in the service of the respondent authorities and was promoted to the post of Armature Winder. In 2003 the department observed that the Armature Winder works as an Electrician with extra knowledge but has no promotional avenue. In light of the aforesaid, it was recommended that the post of Armature Winder be treated equivalent to Electrician and Recruitment Rules be amended to provide them promotional avenue to the post of Chargeman (Electrical).

4.

Thereafter in 2011 the department proposed that the post of Armature Winder be merged with Electrician.

5.

As the recommendations had not been acted upon, petitioner approached the Tribunal in OA/161/AN/2012 but the Tribunal dismissed the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of Recruitment Rules to make Armature Winder a feeder post for promotion to Chargeman (Electrical).

6.

The matter travelled to the High Court and a Bench of this Court in WP.CT/28/2013 directed the respondent no.3 to take a reasoned decision thereon. Pursuant thereto, respondent no.3 by order dated 31.07.2013, inter alia, held that the functional requirement of Armature Winder was distinct from that of Electrician and declined to merge the two posts.

7.

Petitioner challenged the decision before Tribunal in OA/74/2013 and the Tribunal, inter alia, directed the authorities to

amend the Recruitment Rules by making Armature Winder as a feeder post along with Electrical Fitter to the post of Electrician by promotion. 8.

Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner again approached this Court in WP.CT/140/2014. The Bench while upholding the decision of respondent no.3 that the functional requirement of Armature Winder being distinct cannot be merged with the post of Electrician noted the petitioner had creditably rendered service as Electrician and his experience in the said post can be treated as adequate experience for promotion to the post of Chargeman (Electrical), only if Recruitment Rules are amended giving appropriate relaxation to the post of Armature Winder.

9.

The Court observed:- "We leave it open to the authority to consider this and consider whether it is possible to give some relaxation to the armature winders to compete for the promotional post of "chargeman" along with the "electrician" subject to adequate experience referred to above."

10.

In light of the aforesaid observation, respondent no.3 by an order dated 30.03.2017 considered the viability of treating the post of Armature Winder as a feeder post for promotion to Chargeman (Electrical) and, inter alia, came to a finding that at the time of his appointment the petitioner was aware of the said post was an isolated one and in absence of promotional avenue, he was entitled to Assured Career Progression (ACP)/Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) only. On the other hand the respondent noted if the Recruitment

Rules are amended, it shall adversely affect the promotional avenue of Electricians to the post of Chargeman (Electrical). 11.

The aforesaid decision was unsuccessfully assailed before the Tribunal in OA/74/2013.

12.

Ms. Nag for the petitioner contends that her client is an exceptional worker and had discharged duties as an Electrician for the last seventeen years.

Inter-departmental memos repeatedly recommended his case for promotion to Chargeman (Electrical) by amendment of Recruitment Rules. Unfortunately the recommendations went unheeded in spite of observation of this court in WP.CT/140/2014.

13.

In rebuttal, Mr.Chakraborty and Mr. Lall contend Armature Winder is an isolated post. Petitioner joined as a Mazdoor and was promoted to the post of Armature Winder. At the time of his appointment he was fully aware of the cadre structure which do not provide any further promotional avenue. In light of lack of promotional avenue, ACP/MACP schemes are available to give succor to the petitioner. 14.

Petitioner seeks to make out a case of a competent employee who has been stultified due to absence of promotional avenue. Interdepartmental recommendations note his competence while discharging duties as Electrician. Both Armature Winder and Electrician require same qualifications and fall in the same pay band. In fact, Armature

Winder is a specialized Electrician whose functions are of a specialized nature when compared to an Electrician.

15.

Noticing the functional uniqueness of Armature Winder, the department has rightly refused to merge the two posts. But this has given rise to the Armature Winder being denied promotional avenue. 16.

Mr. Chakraborty argues petitioner was fully aware of the lack of promotional avenue in the post of Armature Winder at the time of his appointment by promotion from Mazdoor. In view of lack of promotional avenue he is entitled to the benefits of ACP/MACP schemes. 17.

An employee does not have a fundamental right to promotion. However, it is the duty of the State as a model employer to formulate a cadre structure where the aspiration of an employee to be considered for promotion is not rendered nugatory. However it cannot be said that petitioner in the course of his career has been wholly denied of promotional opportunity. He had joined as a Mazdoor and was promoted to the post of Armature Winder. When he joined the promotional post he was fully conscious that there was no further promotional avenue and he had to reconcile with the ACP/MACP Schemes. 18.

True noticing his exceptional skills the department has repeatedly prayed for amendment of Recruitment Rules to open up promotional avenue. But revisiting Recruitment Rules is a matter of policy and cannot be done to accommodate a single employee even an exceptional one.

19.

We also find substance in the reasoning of the respondent authority that any exercise in that regard would encroach on the promotional avenue of other cadre, namely, Electrician.

Furthermore, apart from petitioner there is no other employee in the cadre of Armature Winder and amendment of Recruitment Rules for a single employee may not be in the interest of administrative convenience and efficiency.

20.

In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion the order of the Tribunal does not call for interference. 21.

WP.CT/55/2023 is accordingly dismissed.

22.

Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties upon compliance of due formalities.

I agree.

(Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)