Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rajib Lochan Goswami Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.

Rajib Lochan Goswami vs Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jul 01, 2008
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/520746

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Articles 12 & 226: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J., Narendra Nath Tiwari & D.P.Singh, JJ] Writ petition - Maintainability - Whether State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., is a State within meaning of Article 12 ? - Held, From perusal of relevant Rules of byelaws, it is clear that St...

Key legal issue
Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajib Lochan Goswami

Advocate Mr. Sahni

Respondent

Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.

Advocate Mr. Sen

Legal References

Reported In
[2008(3)JCR593(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. .....were to be kept on job training and after completion of one year, they were to be regularised as clerk grade-iii. the cadre scheme (annexure-d) provides that for clerical grade-iii, three years service in company was required and the promotion was to be made on the basis of selection/test. it has been specifically pleaded in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit that petitioner was appointed as trainee category-i, whereas others were directly appointed as general mazdoor category-i; and therefore their case is different from the case of the petitioner. petitioner was appointed as trainee, whereas others were sent for job training after they were directly appointed. moreover, petitioner moved this court after about 9 years. in view of all these facts and circumstances, respondents cannot be directed to promote petitioner to grade-iii with effect from 10.10.1992.6. in the absence of pleading, there is no reply to the question raised by mr. sahni that if one year is calculated from 10.10.1992, it will come to 10.10.1993 but petitioner was given grade-iii from 26.12.1993. however, the general manager (p and 1r), central coalfields limited darbhanga house, ranchi (respondent no. 3) will look into this aspect and will com municate a speaking order to the petitioner, as early as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.7. with these observations and directions, this wit petition is disposed of. however, no costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

R.K. Merathia, J.

1. Heard the parties finally.

2. Petitioner's grievance is that he should have been given notional promotion from category-I to Grade-III after completion of one year from his joining, i.e. w.e.f. 10.10.1992, whereas he has been given such benefit from 26.12.1993. Mr. Sahni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that other persons were given such benefit just after completion of one year from the respective dates of their appointment.

3. Mr. Sen, appearing for the respondents, submitted that petitioner was appointed as trainee category-I by appointment letter dated 10.10.1991. As per the Circular dated 27,9.1991; the trainees were to be kept on probation for one year and accordingly after completion of one year petitioner came under cadre and on completion of one year thereafter he has been given the promotion rightly from 26.12.1993. He further submitted that the other persons were appointed directly and therefore after completion of three years in service they were given notional promotion w.e.f. completion of one year from the respective dates of their appointment. He further submitted that petitioner accepted his promotion in Grade-II in the year 1997 without any protest and thereafter he is claiming the notional promotion in Grade-I after a long delay,

4. Mr. Sahni, in reply, submitted that other persons were also sent for training and it is also not known why petitioner has been given Grade-Ill with effect from 26.12.1993 if he completed one year training period on 10.10.1992. He further submitted that when petitioner was given Grade-II in 1997, then cause of action arose, and then he contended that he should have been given Grade-I notionally from 10.10.1992, which grievance remained pending for a long time and thereafter such claim was rejected and therefore there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in raising the claim in question.

5. It appears that petitioner was appointed as trainee category-I by appointment letter dated 10.10.1991 on the ground of Medical unfitness of his father. Though in the printed appointment letter the period of probation was six months, but as per the Circular dated 27.9.1991, candidates were to be appointed as trainees, for different trades as per the requirement of man power, educational qualification and aptitude of the incumbents. The training was to be for a period of one year during which they were to be placed in category-I. After successful completion of training, they were to be placed in regular category/scale of pay of the job. For clerical jobs, the incumbents were to be kept on job training and after completion of one year, they were to be regularised as clerk Grade-III. The cadre scheme (Annexure-D) provides that for clerical Grade-III, three years service in Company was required and the promotion was to be made on the basis of selection/test. It has been specifically pleaded in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit that petitioner was appointed as trainee category-I, whereas others were directly appointed as General Mazdoor category-I; and therefore their case is different from the case of the petitioner. Petitioner was appointed as trainee, whereas others were sent for job training after they were directly appointed. Moreover, petitioner moved this Court after about 9 years. In view of all these facts and circumstances, respondents cannot be directed to promote petitioner to Grade-III with effect from 10.10.1992.

6. In the absence of pleading, there is no reply to the question raised by Mr. Sahni that if one year is calculated from 10.10.1992, it will come to 10.10.1993 but petitioner was given Grade-III from 26.12.1993. However, the General Manager (P and 1R), Central Coalfields Limited Darbhanga House, Ranchi (respondent No. 3) will look into this aspect and will com municate a speaking order to the petitioner, as early as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

7. With these observations and directions, this wit petition is disposed of. However, no costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial