COAL INDIA LTD. AND ORS. versus SAROJ KUMAR MISHRA

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 233 · Decided: 17-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

COAL INDIA LTD. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SAROJ KUMAR MISHRA 
APRIL 17, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
- . ..; 
Service Law-Promotion-Employees of Government Company-Denied 
promotion as vigilance case was pending against them-Writ Petition by 
employees seeking notional promotion from the date, their juniors were c 
promoted-High Court holding them entitled to notional promotion in view 
of Office Memorandums permitting such promotion-On appeal, held: 
Employees were entitled to the notional promotion as claimed for-Rules do 
not provide that only because some allegations have been made against an 
officer, that itself would justifY keeping a right to promotion in abeyance-
A right to promotion can be kept in abeyance only in terms of valid rules- D 
The employer being a State, their action should satisfy the test of 
reasonableness and fairness-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 12, 14 
and 16. 
Interpretation of Statutes/Rules-When a valuable right of an employee 
is in question, the rules operating in the field must be construed in the light E 
of Constitutional Scheme. 
Respondents were the employees of a Government Company. Appellant-
Company was the holding company of the employer-Company. The names of 
the respondents were recommended for promotion by DPC. But they were not F 
~~ 
promoted in view of the fact that vigilance cases were pending against them. 
Juniors of the respondents were promoted. Respondents filed Writ Petitions 
~ 
praying for notional promotion w.e.£ the date, their juniors were promoted. 
During pendency of the Writ Petitions charge sheets were issued, disciplinary 
proceedings initiated and punishment was imposed. 
G 
High Court, relying on Office Memorandums dated 19/27th June, 1979 
-i,. 
and 8th January 1981, held that once the respondents had been allowed the 
.... 
benefit of recommendation ofDPC by giving them promotion, they were entitled 
to notional promotion w.e.f. the date their juniors were promoted. Hence the 
pre!:ent appeal. 
233 
H 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 5 S. C.R. 
A 
Dismissing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgments. Both First 
Appellant as also the employer Company are 'State' within the meaning of 
Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Their action must, therefore, satisfy 
the test of reasonableness and fairness. Although an employee of a State is 
B not entitled to promotion to a higher post as a matter of right, he is entitled 
to be considered therefore in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 
A right of promotion can be withheld or kept in abeyance only in terms of 
valid rules. Rules operating in the field do not provide that only because some 
allegations have been made as against an officer of the company, the same 
c would itself justify keeping a valuable right to be considered for promotion of 
an employee in abeyance. When a question of that nature comes up for 
consideration before a superior court, the extant rules operating in the field 
must necessarily be construed in the light of the constitutional scheme of 
equality. !Paras 25 and IOI [241-G; 238-A, B, CJ 
D 
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Srikanl Chaphekar, [19921 4 sec 689, 
distinguished. 
State of Kerala and Anr. v. NM Thomas and Ors., AIR [19761SC490; 
E. V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (2005] 1 SCC 394; 
Bhagwandas Tiwari and Ors. v. Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and 
E Ors., (2006) 11 SCALE 593 and B. V. Sivaiah and Ors. v. K. Addanki Babu 
and Ors. Etc., [199816 SCC 720, referred to. 
2. It is not the case of the appellants that pursuant to or in furtherance 
of the complaint received by the vigilance department, the competent authority 
F 
had arrived at a satisfaction as is required in terms of the said circulars that 
a charge sheet was likely to be issued on the basis of a preliminary enquiry 
held in that behalf or otherwise. A departmental proceeding is ordinarily said 
to be initiated only when a chargesheet is issued. [239-G; 240-A; 241-DJ 
[Paras 13 and 211 
G 
3. The Circular Letters issued by the appellants put restrictions on a 
valuable right of an employee. They therefore, are, required to be construed 
strictly. So construed there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the conditions 
precedent contained therein must be satisfied before any action can be taken 
in that regard. [Para 14] [240-A, Bl 
H 
4. Only because, there is a possibility of floodgate litigation by giving 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.