D. K. Seth, J. - (1.) :- The petitioners had moved a writ petition being Matter No. 5295 of 1988 since disposed of on 8th May 1991. In the said order, the grievances of the petitioner with regard to the promotion vis-a-vis those of their juniors were directed to be resolved through a representation to be made by the petitioners for disposal by the authority concerned, passing a reasoned order on merit. Subsequently, the grievances of the petitioners were subjected to a one-man Commission being Ramakrishnan Committee, which recommended giving of one promotion to those who were victim of accelerated career growth of their junior counterparts in a particular subsidiary. But this recommendation was not accepted. Another writ petition was moved being Matter No. 4025 of 1991 since dismissed on account of some technical defects with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. The fresh writ petition filed is now before me.
(2.) In brief, the grievances of the petitioners are that a new subsidiary Central Mines Planning and Design Institute Limited (C.M.P.D.I.L.) came into existence in 1975. The officers who were allotted in this subsididary of the Coal India Limited (C.I.L.) had an advantage of accelerated career growth in the matter of their promotion. Whereas the petitioners who were in B.C.C.L. another subsidiary of C.I.L. lagged behind. In these. circumstances, virtually two reliefs have since been claimed, one that the recommendation of Sri Ramakrishnan Committee should be implemented, second that the discrimination should be removed. This has since been sought to be opposed by the respondents on the ground that the recommendation of the Committee is not binding and is dependent on the acceptance by the respondent, which has the discretion. The second ground was that since the question of promotion upto E-5 level was independent in each subsidiary, accelerated growth in one than the other would not attract the principle of discrimination forbidden under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) The facts are more or less undisputed. C.M.P.D.I.L. came into existence in 1975. The Planning and Design Department of different subsidiaries was centralized under the umberella of C.M.P.D.I.L. The C.I.L. had its different subsidiaries. B.C.C.L. is one of them. The petitioners were/are employed in B.C.C.L. The term of promotion at the relevant point of time in the officers' rank was independently decided upto E-5 level within the subsidiary. Promotion from E-6 level was considered by the Head Quarters (C.I.L.) centrally. Since C.M.P.D.I.L. was a new subsidiary, the promotion of the officers' upto E-5 level was accelerated. Many of the juniors of the petitioners who were in C.M.P.D.I.L. reached E-5 level in a time much shorter than that of the petitioners and became eligible for consideration for promotion to E-6 level. This created the grievance of the petitioners, which was ultimately settled through negotiation in which a settlement was arrived at. In the settlement, a cut off date of seven years service in E-5 level was introduced as eligibility for promotion to E-6 level. This has also been objected to by the petitioners. Both the learned Counsel for the respective parties have made erudite submissions and had submitted written notes on arguments. Though, the arguments have been made elaborately yet in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not required to deal with each branch of the submissions made by the respective Counsel in view of the scope of the dispute to be decided by, the Court.;