MR.UTTAM E.SIRSAT & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Mr.Uttam E.Sirsat And Ors
Union Of India And Anr.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioners are working as Supervisory staff with the 2nd respondent i.e. Air-India Limited. On 29/6/1987, the Ministry of Industry and Bureau of Public Enterprises issued a Circular clarifying that Time Bound Promotion Scheme ('TBP Scheme' in short) adopted by various Public Sector
Undertakings should not be in violation of the instructions issued by the government on the point of
reservations. It was clarified that the promotions under the TBP Scheme have been corrected delinked from vacancies and are available to all eligible employees on completion of the
prescribed length of service except those who are found unfit for promotion. The said clarification in
fact provided that there is complete absence of vacancy based promotions under TBP Scheme and
the promotions under the scheme should be without any specific screening of merit, provision for
rosters or zone of consideration which have concomitants of vacancy based promotion as the same
are irrelevant to TBP Scheme.
(2.) The respondent no.2 implemented the TBP Scheme from 1/4/1989 and granted benefit of the Circular to every employee working at supervisory, clerical and other allied category on completion
of certain length of service. According to the petitioners, from inception of the TBP Scheme, no
reservation was provided in the said scheme, except for promotions from Office Assistant's post to
Senior Office Assistant's post.
(3.) It is the petitioners' case that having regard to the office Memorandum dated 29th June 1987 issued by the 1 st respondent, the reservation policy was not applied by the 2
nd respondent in the TBP Scheme. However, by a Circular dated 19/20th May 1995, the 2nd
respondent applied the reservation policy in TBP Scheme with retrospective effect from 1 st January,
1992. It is the petitioners' case that the petitioners who belonged to the General Category are more likely to be affected by the decision of respondent no.2 applying the reservation policy. In the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, they are seriously prejudiced by this.
According to him, there should not be no reservation policy in TBP Scheme as directed by Union of India. The respondent no.2 has unilaterally applied the reservation policy to TBP Scheme. In the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said policy is discriminatory as in respect of other undertakings no reservation is applied to promotions under TBP Scheme. It is further contended that as a result of giving benefits of reservation under the TBP Scheme the permissible limit of reservation has exceeded as this is over and above the benefit i.e. period corrected available to vacancy based promotion. In the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners the TBP Scheme is meant to remove stagnation and the benefits under the said scheme are based on the length of the service and, therefore, applying the reservation policy is completely contrary to the object of the scheme. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.