C.K. Banerji, J. - (1.) The Farakka Barrage Project is a comprehensive multipurpose irrigation-cum-transport project under the Agro-Irrigation Department of the Government of India. The said project has about 13 self-contained divisions. The overall command of the project is vested in the General Manager the respondent No. 7 who is the supreme executive authority. The petitioner No 1 is a welder in the workshop division and the petitioner No. 2 is an auto-electrician in the equipment division of the said project. Both the petitioners are work-charged employees. The petitioners allege that their employment would continue till the completion of the said project and the Government of India assured them and all other work-charged employees that their employment under the said project would continue without break. The petitioners further allege that almost all the 13 divisions-of the said project have work-charged employees in their rolls and there are different categories of posts for the work-charged staff and different pay scales are admissible to different posts and despite the difference in costs, pay and seniority, the work-charged employees constitute a class by themselves having identical interest and status vis a vis other posts and categories of employees inasmuch as there were neither rules nor opportunities for promotion for the work-charged employees. The respondent No. 7 issued an order being Confidential No. 7 dated 3-4-1974 subsequently renumbered as 2985(16) dated 3-4-1974 whereby rules of pro. motion of the work-charged employees were prescribed. The respondent No 7, however, by a subsequent order No. A-l 00(E) 4049(30) dated 8-4-1974 superseded his said earlier order prescribing rules of promotion but maintained the channel of promotion as laid down in the said earlier order and classified certain points. The Executive Engineer gave effect to the said orders dated 3rd April, 1974 and 8th April, 1974 whereby 6 employees in the electrical division were promoted on ad hoc basis to the next higher post with effect from 1st April, 1974 by issuing an office order No. W-Cor-33/1490(20) dated 15th April, 1974. In terms of the order No. 1729(9) dated the 12th August, 1974 issued by the Chairman, Departmental Promotion Council, Farakka Barrage Project, the respondent No. 8 the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division by this office order No. W. C. 33/3824(93) dated 14th August, 1974 gave promotion to another batch of 73 employees of the electrical division under the directive of the respondent No. 7. The office order being Memo No. 5417 (14) dated 23rd May, 1974 was issued whereby it was directed that promotion given pursuant to the said order dated 8th April, 1974 made by the respondent No. 7 should be ratified by the Departmental Promotion Council Before the promotees were paid their emoluments for the posts to which they were promoted, the respondent No. 8 by his order No. 1727(9) dated 12th August, 1974 prescribed by the respondent No. 7 by his said orders dated 3rd Aril, 1974 and 8th April, 1974. petitioners allege that upon such ratification the said rules stood confirmed and received final sanction and became binding and enforceable. By his order No. A-108/B/6654(17) dated 2nd July, 1974, the respondent No. 7 directed that the work-charged who had completed or would complete requisite number of years of service from 1st April, 1974 to 31st August, 1974 in terms of column 3 of his said order dated 8th April, 1974 were eligible for promotions but such promotions were to be in the new scale The respondent No. 7 by a further order No. A/108/E/9457(11) dated 22nd July, 1974 directed the Superintending Executive Engineers of the respective divisions to process the promotion cases and clear the same as directed by his earlier order dated 2nd July, 1974 a copy whereof was sent to the respondent No. 2. The petitioners allege that the rules of promotion as prescribed by the respondent No. 7 by his orders dated 3rd April, 1974 and 8th April, 1974 being ratified by respondent No 8 and having been given effect to and acted upon by actually promoting 67 and 73 work-charged employees of .he electrical division in two batches it was incumbent on the respondents to give promotions to all the work-charged employees qualified for promotion in accordance with the said rules and to pay the salary and other emoluments to the said 67 and 73 work charged employees of the electrical division already promoted as due and payable to them in the said promoted posts but the respondent were not implementing the said orders prescribing rules of promotion by not giving promotions and also did not pay the said 67 and 73 work-charged employees already promoted, the pay and allowance to which they are entitled on such promotions.
(2.) The petitioners state that the Agro-Irri-Power Department now known as Agro-Irrigation Department upon re-allocation of departments by the Union Government imposed certain bans and withheld the said orders dated 3rd April, 1974 and 8th April, 1974 passed by the respondent No 7 and re-affirmed by him on the 2nd July, 1974 and ratified by the respondent No. 8 and given effect to by the Executive Engineer, electrical division as already stated. The petitioners have not been furnished with the impugned order and they are not aware of the contents thereof but came to know of its existence from a reference thereof in a telegram sent by the respondent No. 7 to the respondent No. I. The petitioners have made this writ petition inter alia challenging the said impugned order. The writ petition has been made by the petitioners in representative capacity for and on behalf of and representing all work-charged employess of the said project ana they assert to have been duly authorised by the different unions of the work-charged employees to make this application for the benefit of all and have prayed for leave under order 1 rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears from the records that such leave was granted to the petitioner and due publication by advertisement was made in the newspaper and thereupon 305 employees have been added as parties to this writ petition
(3.) Mr. Kashikanta Maitra the learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that the General Manager of the project was competent to lay down or prescribe the rules for promotion of the employees of project and once such rules were approved by the Departmental Promotion Council the same could not be changed or superseded or suspended without the concurrence of the said Council. The rules so prescribed or laid down and approved by the Departmental Promotion Council were binding on the employer and the employees covered by the said rules. Mr. Maitra urged that in the instant case the rules prescribed by the General Manager by his orders dated 3rd April, 1974 as modified and/or clarified by his order dated 8th April, 1974 was further confirmed and directed to be given effect to by the General Manager by his order dated 23rd May. 1974 which was ratified and confirmed by the Chairman, Departmental Promotion Council by his order dated 12th August, 1974 and thus the said rules become binding both on the work-charged employee of the project and the respondents. The General Manager further directed by his order dated 22nd July, 1974 that the employees who had completed a specified number of years of service within a certain period would be eligible for promotion. Mr. Maitra contended that the story now sought to be made out on behalf of the respondents that the orders dated 3rd April, 1974 or the 8th April, 1974 made by the General Manager were obtained by duress was wholly untrue and an after-thought was clearly established from the several subsequent orders passed by the General Manager clarifying or giving effect to the said orders even as late as 22nd July, 1994 and ratified by the Chairman of the Departmental Promotion Council on the 12th August, 1974. Mr. Maitra submitted that the said rules for promotion laid down by the General Manager were not only communicated by the authorities to the employees concerned but also given effect to by giving promotions to two batches of 67 and 73 employees of the Electrical Division but the respondents wrongfully and illegally refused to pay the emoluments to the said promoted employees to which they were entitled 10 upon such promotion. Mr. Maitra further urged that the other story sought to be made out in the supplementary affidavit-in-opposition of P. Sachinandan affirmed on the 24th November, 1978 that the promotions given to the said two batches of employees were cancelled was wholly untrue and annexure "R" to the said supplementary affidavit-in-opposition was a document subsequently manufactured and brought into existence for the purpose of this case. The said annexure 'R' purports to bear the date 19th November 1975 but the same was not upto this date communicated to the employees concerned and affected thereby. The said purported order is alleged to have been issued by the Executive Engineer Electrical Division but no affidavit has been affirmed by the said issuing, authority asserting that the said purported order was in fact issued or signed by him at all or on the 19th November, 1975.;