JUDGEMENT
S.H.Kapadia, J. -
(1.) LEAVE granted. The short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is whether the appellant (employee) is entitled to seniority in the matter of promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer vis-a-vis Respondent Nos. 3 to 17.
(2.) ON 31.3.1992, a Settlement was reached between Indian Airlines and All India Aircraft Engineers' Association under which the then existing designations were revised as follows:
JUDGEMENT_341_TLPRE0_2007Html1.htm
The revised designation was to operate from 1.4.1989.
By the said Settlement dated 31.3.1992, appellant was redesignated as Aircraft Engineer whereas respondent Nos. 3 to 17 were redesignated as Sr. Aircraft Engineer w.e.f. 1.4.1989. Under the. said Settlement, approval qualification had to be acquired by Sr. Aircraft Engineer (feeder post) for being promoted as Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer. Under the Settlement, for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer, the Sr. Aircraft Engineer had to obtain approval of nine groups. Under the Settlement, the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer was created for the first time with effect from 1.4.1992 to be filled from the said feeder post of Sr. Aircraft Engineer. The candidate was required to acquire specified number of points before 1.4.1995. However, the Jet Shop which was established in 1992 for Delhi by Indian Airlines did not get its approval in time from DGCA (Directorate General of Civil Aviation). Therefore, the Association requested the Management to grant conditional promotion in various grades to enable employees like respondents 3 to 17 to complete their eligibility before the cut-off date. This request was made as employees like respondents 3 to 17 would have stagnated on account of above anomalies created by Settlement dated 31.3,1992. Therefore, on 23.7.1993, the Management and the Union entered into Discussions with regard to conditional promotion.
Vide Order dated 7.2.1994, respondents 3 to 17 were given conditional promotions to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineers with effect from 1.4.1992/ 1.4.1993 respectively. They were required to obtain nine approvals by 31.3.1995. As stated above, the Jet Shop set up by Indian Airlines for Delhi was approved only in February, 1995, therefore, respondents 3 to 17 could not fulfil the requisite qualification by the cut-off date. On the other hand, appellant herein completed two years service in the post of Sr. Aircraft Engineer on 31.3.1993. He acquired the requisite qualification on 15.12.1993.
(3.) ACCORDING to the appellant, till today respondent Nos. 3 to 17 have failed to acquire approval qualification. ACCORDING to the appellant, the cut-off date, namely, 1.4.1995 has since passed. Appellant states that on 1.4.1991 he as well as respondents 3 to 17 were Sr. Aircraft Engineers. Appellant states that on 7.2.1994 respondents 3 to 17 were conditionally promoted with effect from 1.4.1992/1.4.1993. Therefore, according to the appellant, he was qualified for promotion on 15.12.1993 whereas respondents 3 to 17 till date have not acquired the requisite qualification. Appellant, therefore, prayed that respondents 3 to 17 were not entitled to promotions to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineers. It is the case of the appellant that he has been ultimately promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer vide order dated August, 2000 with effect from 1.10.1999. However, he has not been given promotion as Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer from 15.12.1993 when he acquired the qualification and, therefore, Indian Airlines had erred in showing respondents 3 to 17 as senior to the appellant herein in the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer with effect from 1.4.1992/1.4.1993.
The main argument advanced on behalf of the appellant was that seniority in a cadre under the Promotion Rules did not entitle respondents 3 to 17 for promotions to the higher post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer unless the candidate acquired the Approval Qualification prescribed by such Rules. It was submitted that eligibility under the said Rules was different from seniority. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that under the Promotion Rules what was contemplated was "seniority amongst the qualified". It was submitted that appellant had acquired the qualification on 15.12.1993 and since respondents 3 to 17 did not acquire the requisite qualification appellant was entitled to be promoted not from 1.10.1999 but from 15.12.1993 and, consequently, appellant has been discriminated vis-a-vis respondents 3 to 17 inasmuch as the said respondents were promoted with effect from 1.4.1992/1.4.1993 herein. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the qualification prescribed by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules cannot be overruled by Industrial Settlement dated 31.3.1992 or by Note of Discussions dated 23.7.1993. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that, in any event, Industrial Settlement dated 31.3.1992 and the Promotion Rules had to be read in tandem; that the Industrial Settlement retained the qualification prescribed by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules; that even the Note of Discussions retained the said qualifications but it is the Management who said that as a one time exercise, weightage should be given to seniority and as a one time exercise respondents 3 to 17 should be allowed to be promoted to the posts of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineers in terms of Order dated 7.2.1994 (Exhibit V-4'). It was urged that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules only referred to "seniority amongst qualified" as the criteria of promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer which could not be eliminated either by the Industrial Settlement dated 31.3.1992 or by Note of Discussions dated 23.7.1993. It was urged that the appellant herein acquired the approval qualification on 15.12.1993 but vide impugned order dated 7.2.1994 the Management gave conditional promotions to respondents 3 to 17 with effect from 1.4.1992/1.4.1993 which created discrimination which violated the appellant's fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.