- (1.) The Court : In this writ petition the petitioner has inter alia prayed for orders confirming him as Head Clerk/Chief Clerk/Section-in-Charge and fitment in the grade, pay and scale and other benefits attached to the post which was enjoyed by the Ex-Head Clerk of WPO Department with effect from 15th January, 1982. The petitioner joined as temporary clerk in Accounts Department of M/s. Hooghly Docking & Engineering Co. Ltd., Salkia, Howrah and ultimately he was confirmed as a Clerk in or around 1965. The said M/s. Hooghly Docking 84 Engineering Co. Ltd., became an undertaking of the Central Government and on 9.7.1984 a new Government Company named Hooghly Dock & Port Engineers Ltd. was formed. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said Government Company, the respondent no. 1 is a State and/or Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution being fully controlled and financed by the Central Government. It is the contention of the petitioner that on 6th June, 1980 the General Manager, (W&R) of the M/s. Hooghly Docking & Engineering Co. Ltd. issued an office order to the effect that under the instruction of the General Manager, dated the 2nd February, 1975, Shri B. K. Chakraborty (ex-Head Clerk) was deputed with the assistance of the petitioner for collection of pay packets from the Cash Department on the pay day for disbursement to all members of the Junior Staff working under the General Manager (W&R) Division. The further contention of the petitioner is that subsequently the service of Sri B. K. Chakraborty was extended for one year in order to train up a person from the clerical staff of WPO who would pick up the job of Head Clerk and assume charge of the said post on superannuation of Sri B. K. Chakraborty. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said Shri B. K. Chakraborty, Head Clerk, WPO was superannuated on 14th January, 1982 and his charge and responsibilities were handed over to the petitioner under the direction of the respondent No. 4. It is stated in the writ petition that at the time of handing over the charge by said Shri B. K. Chakraborty, Head Clerk to the petitioner the respondent no. 4, the then Manager (Works) assured the petitioner verbally that he would take necessary steps for confirmation of the petitioner's service with effect from the 15th January, 1982 as Head Clerk, WPO and also for his fitment to the grade enjoyed by Stan B. K. Chakraborty, the Ex-Head Clerk of WPO.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that said Shri B. K Chakraborty, Ex-Head Clerk, WPO retired in the scale of pay-Rs. 300-20-500-EB-600 with Bengal Chamber of Commerce DA (Second Staff Cadre). The petitioner made an application on the 24th January, 1983 to the then Manager (Works) for confirmation of the petitioner's service as Head Clerk, WPO and ac stated in paragraph-9 of the writ petition, the Manager (Works) who is the present respondent No. 4 also made endorsements on the body of the petitioner's application strongly recommending for confirmation of the petitioner in the said post of Head Clerk, WPO, but the then General Manager declined to confirm the petitioner and threatened reversion. Then on 13th July, 1983 the Manager (Personnel) issued a Memo transferring one Shri S. K. Biswas, Chief Clerk (Ship Yard as Chief Clerk, WPO. The petitioner's case is that this was done to dislodge the petitioner from the post of Chief Clerk/Head Clerk/Section-in-Charge by importing Shri S. K. Biswas in his place although the petitioner had been working in that post since 15th January, 1982 without any break under verbal instruction of the respondent no. 4 who was the then Manager (Works). According to the petitioner's case at his behest the Secretary of the Employees' Union took up the matter with the authority concerned so that the petitioner might not be dislodged from his position of Chief Clerk/Head Clerk/Section-in-Charge and the authority concerned ultimately withdrew the Memo of transfer of Shri S. K. Biswas as Chief Clerk, WPO. On 9th January, 1984 a new designation namely Senior Clerk was introduced by the Management in between Clerk and Chief Clerk/Section-in-Charge and the petitioner was re-designated as Senior Clerk along with 60/65 other clerical staff with effect from the 1st February, 1984. On 14th August, 1984 the petitioner made an application to the respondent no. 3 praying for fitment to the pay scale of Ex-Head Clerk, Shri B. K. Chakraborty with effect from 15th January, 1982 on the ground that the petitioner had been working in the place of Shin Chakraborty with effect from the date of his superannuation. After receiving the said letter Annexure-E to the writ petition the then General Manager, Shri S. R. Chanda issued to the petitioner Memo No. PO/930 dated the 18th August, 1984 Annexure-F to the writ petition inter alia warning him not to write such letter in future failing which severe disciplinary action would be taken including removal from the present post in Works Planning Office. The petitioner then brought the matter to the notice of the Secretary of the Employee's Union and also wrote a letter again to the General Manager (Annexure-H to the writ petition) requesting him to do justice to the petitioner and to withdraw the said warning letter. Again, on 8-10.85 and on 19.12.85 the petitioner made representations to the Deputy General Manager, the respondent no. 4 (Annexure-I collectively) claiming office order for Confirmation of the petitioner as Head Clerk/Chief Clerk/Section-in-Charge with effect from 15th January, 1982. Then several other representations were also made to several places but to no effect and ultimately the petitioner has moved this writ petition. In paragraphs 28 and 30 of the wait petition the petitioner has enumerated the jobs of Head Clerk which he has been performing since the retirement of the ex-Head Clerk, Sri B. K. Chakraborty.
(3.) In the affidavit-in-opposition the respondents have however denied that at the time of superannuation of Shri B. K. Chakraborty, ex-Head Clerk, the petitioner took charge and responsibility of the post of Head Clerk from said Shri Chakraborty or that there was any direction in that behalf by the respondent No. 4. It is also denied that the petitioner worked as Head Clerk in W.P.O. The respondents' case is that in 1983 the petitioner was working as Grade-I Clerk and that promotions are made on the basis of recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee since the respondent no. 1 was formed a Government Company. It is the further case of the respondents that the petitioner was promoted as Senior Clerk in Grade 'B' with effect from February 1, 1984 and that thereafter the Departmental Promotion Committee did not recommend his name and as such his promotion could not be considered and in other departments of the Company there are senior clerks who are senior to the writ petitioner and without considering their promotion the petitioner cannot be promoted and further that promotion is not granted in respect of seniority in a department and rather it is considered in respect of the entire organisation for a particular position. It is the contention of the respondents that the job done by the petitioner is assigned to him as Senior Clerk Grade 'B'. In paragraph 41 of the writ petition the petitioner contended that on several occasions in December 1982 and July 1983 the Management adopted a pick and choose policy and promoted a good number of clerks without any interview for the selection and promotion from clerk to Head Clerk/Chief Clerk/Section-in-Charge and he has also mentioned a good number of specific instances in that behalf. As against that, it is stated in paragraph-34 of the affidavit in-opposition that such promotions were made by the erstwhile Company and not by the present Government Company and even assuming that such pick and choose policy was adopted at that time the petitioner has no remedy in a writ petition against a Company which was not a State. In paragraph 37 of the affidavit-in-opposition it is stated that since the post of Head Clerk in the WPO Department is vacant the Departmental Promotion Committee, if they think fit would recommend for the promotion of any employee who would be found suitable by the committee for such post of Head Clerk.;