ORDER
1. Gaurishankar Tiwary, the respondent No. 1 was appointed in December, 1972 and was posted in Quality Control Department of the Bokaro Steel Plant. In June. 1977 he was promoted to the next higher scale and with effect from 16.12.1980 was given P-7 scale. In May, 1982 he claimed to have acquired a professional qualification of Associate Member of the Institute of Chemist (India). In the year 1984 he as transferred to Refractory Raw Material Plant and on 24.3.1988 was promoted to P-8 scale.
2. Under the circular dated 27.12.1982/4.1.1983 the respondent No. 1 was qualified for promotion from non-executive to executive post in E-1 grade. He was exempted from the pre-selection training course, prescribed for promotion from non-executive to executive, in E-1 grade. However, his case was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer (Chemical and Refractory) in E-1 grade. He filed a representation on 10.11.1983. Thereafter he submitted second representation on 4.6.1984 to the General Manager (Personnel and Administration) Bokaro Steel Plant, but no action was taken. His third representation to the Managing Director also remained undecided. On 31.12.1986 the General Secretary of the Union, of which the respondent No. 1 was a member, raised industrial dispute but nothing happened thereafter. At the instance of the appellant, the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court by order dated 1.3.10.1988, passed in CWJC. No. 1251 of 1987 (R), directed to pass final order in terms of Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the conciliation proceeding and send the same to the State Government. But on submission of the failure report, the State Government on 24.12.1987 declined to refer the dispute on the ground that no junior to him was promoted. His second writ application, CWJC No. 946 to 1990 (R) challenging the said order dated 24.12.1987 was also dismissed. According to the respondent No. 1, he became eligible for promotion to E-1 grade in the year 1,983, after acquiring the Associate Membership of the Institute of Chemist. However, on 13.12.1992 he was promoted from Analyst to Operative (Chemical) in WSTA (Maintenance), which was a non-executive post.
3. The Manager Personnel (OD) Bokaro Steel Plant issued a letter dated 20.3.1992 to him stating therein as under :--
'As per the revised Promotion Policy/Rules for promotion from nonexecutive to executive cadre, a professionally qualified non-executive is required to have put in a minimum seven years' service in L-8 grade. You were promoted to L-8 grade, on 24.3.1988 and possess the qualifications of B.Sc. and Diploma in AIC (Associate, Member of Indian Chemist India). It may thus be seen that you are eligible for being considered for promotion to E-O grade......Your contention that the next position in the LoP of Analyst is Assistant Divisional Engineer or Junior Manager in E-1 grade is not correct. So is your allegation about discrimination against or deviation from rules insofar as the case relating to your promotion to the executive post is concerned.'
4. The respondent No. 1 challenged the said communication in CWJC No. 2239 of 1995 (R), which was heard and allowed by the impugned order dated 21.8.2003; by the learned Single Judge with following observations :--
'Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case I am of the definite opinion that petitioner became entitled to promotion with all consequential benefits in executive grade at least with effect from 1995. In the impugned order as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application which was issued in 1992 the reason for not giving promotion to the petitioner was that he did not complete 7 years' of service in L-8 grade. According to their own case the petitioner become eligible and qualified for promotion in 1995 and therefore, the respondents ought to have promoted the petitioner to executive grade in at least 1995.'
5. The respondents were directed to take step for his promotion to executive grade with all consequential benefits with effect from 1995, the date when the completed 7 years' of service in P-8 grade.
6. In the present appeal, Mr. Mishra, counsel for the appellant submitted that under the old promotion policy, which was effective till May, 1998, an employee possessing AIC had no right for promotion from non-executive ton executive grade. The respondent No. 1 did not fulfil the conditions required for being considered for such promotion. The promotion from nonexecutive to executive cadre was not automatic. On account of possessing the AIC, the respondent No. 1 was only entitled for exemption to undergo the pre-selection training and nothing more. The new promotional policy came into effect from June, 1998, wherein an employee possessing diploma only was eligible on completion of minimum 7 years' of service in P-8 grade for promotion. Thus the respondent No. 1 became eligible for consideration for promotion to the executive cadre on 24.3.1997, and he could not have been promoted with effect from 1995.
7. In the year 1988 the policy for promotion from non-executive to executive cadre was reviewed. Taking into account the HRD thrust as well as organizational needs, a revised policy was devised and implemented with effect from June, 1988. It was decided that all promotion from non-executive to executive cadre would be through E-O level only and they will be place in E-1 grade, after completion of training and based on performance in E-O. The non-executive from L-8/L-9 level were to be promoted to E-O level in the executive cadre. The existing pre-selection training was discontinued and persons eligible on the basis of qualification, performance and length of service were to be interviewed by the high level selection Committee for being promoted to the E-O level. A candidate for being called for interview, was required minimum 7 years' of service in the regular grade of L-8/L-9 for qualified engineers, 9 years', service in regular grades of L-8/L-9 for B.Sc/Diploma Holders and a minimum of 11 years' service in the regular grade of L-8/L-9 for matriculates and matriculates with ITI qualification. The respondent No. 1 was not a qualified engineer and as such for him to be promoted to E-O level, nine years' of service in L-8/L-9 regular grade was necessary.
8. Mr. Mishra, counsel for the appellant further contended that with effect from 1.6.1988 two different promotion policies for non-executive as well as executives were brought into force. The new promotion policy for executives contained Annexure 1-A, as part of the executive promotion policy, but there was no such annexure with the new policy of promotion for the non-executives. It cannot be said that the list of professional qualifications, annexed with the old circular dated 27.12.1982/4.1.1983 was effective for the hew promotion policy of non-executives also, unless it was specifically mentioned therein. Thus, the communication, Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit was issued on 11.11.1996 clarifying the position that for the purpose of the new promotion policy for the non-executive, the list of professional qualifications annexed with the executive promotion rules as Annexure 1-A was applicable for the promotion rules for the non-executives too.
9. We find that in the lost of professional qualifications, Annexure 1-A, aforesaid the qualification 'Associateship diploma of the Institute of Chemist (India) obtained through written examination', which was one of the qualifications annexed to the circular dated 27.12.1982/4.1.1983 was not included herein and the respondent No. 1 was, therefore, not entitled to get advantage of two years' less service in grade E-8/E-9 for promotion to the Executive Grade E-O on account of the said qualification, which he had acquired. So he cannot claim eligibility for his promotion from nonexecutive to executive grade, after completing only 7 years' service in E-8/E-9 possessing B.Sc. qualification. As such he became eligible for such promotion only after completing 9 years' of service in E-8 grade, i.e., in the year 1997.
10. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 18.8.2003, passed by the learned Single Judge and direct the appellant to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 for promotion from nonexecutive to executive post in the next DPC, which is under process and is scheduled to be held some time in December, 2003 itself. It is made clear that the case of the respondent No. 1 must be considered by the DPC for the purpose of promotion, keeping in view of the rule applicable in his case positively in December, 2003 so that he may get advantage of his promotion before his retirement in January, 2004.
11. This appeal is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.