VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE writ petitioners have filed this writ for (I) quashing a portion of the office order No. 1/1991 (Annexure -6) subsequently amended by Circular No. 4/1991, dated 28.9.1991 (Annexure -5) - whereby and whereunder the petitioners ' pay scale has been reduced, (ii) also for issuance of an order to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for providing them the pay scale with effect from 31.12.1987 with revisional benefit of Rs. 350.00 as the petitioners were in non -supervisory scale and (iii) for a direction that the petitioners ' seniority as against their other colleagues who were working as Assistant Personnel Officer be protected.
(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY , the petitioners were appointed in the year 1972 as L.D. Assistants. In the year 1977, the promotion was given to the petitioners as Input/Output Clerks and Progress Chaser. According to the respondents, the basic cadre was of L.D. Assistant and from that, three cadres namely (i) U.D. Clerk known as Assistant Cadre II (ii) Accounts Clerk and (Iii) Input/Output Clerk emerged. According to the respondents, these three cadres were entirely different from one another and non -mixing promotion among these three cadres, i.e. U.D. Clerk, Accounts Clerk and Input/Output Clerk. Thus, in all these three cadres, further promotion was dependent on the vacancy, as and when, arising in that particular cadre and consequently, as there was vacancy in the year 1978 in U.D./Accounts Clerk, promotion was given only to the employees of these cadres besides some time allowances. But as there was no vacancy in Input/Output Clerk, no promotion was given to the petitioners at that relevant time. The real problem begins from this place. Nothing has been shown by the respondents that the petitioners had opted for being promoted to the cadre of Input/Output Clerk. So what remains unanswered by the respondents is as to what were the circumstances and conditions in which some persons were promoted to Assistant Cadre II and some were promoted to Accounts Clerk and some to Input/Output Clerk. In this context, Annexure -9, i.e. the office order No. 18/77 requires consideration. This office order is issued on Memorandum of Settlement. Paragraph No. 4 of the said office order read as follows : "4. The categories of employees who have been brought over to the industrial scales will seek avenues of advancement in their own cadres only. They will not in any way, interfere with the promotional avenues of other workmen in various grades or vice - versa." As the petitioners were given the industrial scale with certain time allowances, they were as per this decision expected to get these benefits in their own cadre without interfering with the promotional avenues in other various cadres and vice - versa. This was made effective from 23.4.1977. Here the question is if such a condition was imposed, then what was expected of an employee, who had been given industrial scale after being promoted as Input/Output Clerk? Obvious it is that they will expect the avenues of further career growth. The respondents, who imposed such a condition, were required to find the career channel, for these categories of employees to which the petitioners were promoted to, without seeking their option. Though the petitioners filed their representations requesting the management to provide channel of promotion, but the administration neither disposed of their representations, nor did provide any chance of promotion. Thus, it was very unconscionable on the part of the respondents that at one hand they imposed such a condition and at the other, failed to formulate a channel for career growth for them, at their own. The obvious result was that while the L.D. Assistant, who were junior to them and were given promotion in the cadre of Accountant or in the cadre of Assistant Grade II, got promotion, the petitioners could not. Such a situation was the outcome of the respondents ' indifference and arbitrariness. Here lies the injustice which appears to have been done in respect of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 at least. The petitioners No. 1 to 4, thus, at this stage became the victim of injustice for their no fault The petitioners were already in Assistant Grade II in the scale of Rs. 352 -606/ -. When they were given industrial scale of Rs. 387 -607/ - but pay scale of Progress Chasers in Plant, who were in the scale of Assistant Grade II, had been replaced by the Industrial Scale of Rs. 444 -701/ -. The petitioner filed representation to know in which category they were and what were the avenues of advancement. They also claimed that if the scale is not given, they should be allowed to remain in Industrial Scale with time allowance. This representation was not disposed of and again referring to this, the petitioners filed Annexure -2 for prescribing a channel of promotion in the lines of Assistants. This was also not disposed of. The petitioners having come to know that computer staff were going to be declared as Technical Staff prayed that as the petitioners are in Input/ Output Section, which in their opinion, was important section of the Computer and as the Punch Verifier Operators also came from the category of Typist like them (from Assistants) and were doing the same nature of job, their job is of technical nature and like Punch and Verifier Operators they were performing the duties of 8 hours. Therefore, they protested that since they had already been separated from the Assistant Cadre, their further separation from the Computer Staff would be more disadvantageous because they have already been put to disadvantageous conditions than the Assistant Grade II and in absence of determination of channel of promotion while the Assistant Grade II had already got promotion, they had become juniors to them in this cadre, therefore, they should also be treated as Technical Staff. This representation appears to have been filed in 1985, Annexure -3. It was also not attended. Again it appears that while the Computer staff were given promotion after completion of 6 years of service, these petitioners were left and they were promoted after 8 years without any monetary benefit. The petitioners therefore again filed representation on 14.1.1988, Annexure -4, for rectifying the injustice.
(3.) THE petitioners have submitted that Dr. Binod Kumar report had been accepted by the Management, vide Annexure -1, and in the spirit of that report the petitioners time bound promotion should have been given along with others who were promoted in the year 1978. The respondents reply is that since there were recommendation of the Dr. Binod Kumar report that non -technical staff should be given time bound promotion after 7 years whereas the technical staff should be given time bound promotion after 6 years and as the petitioners had not completed 7 years in the cadre of Input/Output Clerk, which was non -technical cadre, in the year 1979, they were given promotion in the year 1980. Here the petitioners submit that they are, in fact, technical staff as they were working in Computer Section and when the persons juniors to the petitioners, who were also working in the Computer Section, were given that benefit, there was no justification of delaying this promotion by one year and causing financial loss to them. In none of the circulars or even in the Dr. Binod Kumar report, the words. "Technical" and "Non -technical" posts have been defined so as to describe in which category the petitioners fell. But the petitioners were treated as non - technical staff despite the representations filed by them. Dr. Binod Kumar report came in the year 1985 and the petitioners were given promotion with effect from 1980 on that basis. While in the case of other employees who were promoted as Assistant Cadre II or Accounts Clerk, promotion was given after 6 years. In absence of any declaration that Input/Output Clerk was not technical and Accounts Clerk was technical and giving retrospective promotion on their discretion was discriminatory to two cadres of employees, in doing so their time allowance was also denied, when there was clear direction in paragraph No. 3 of Annexure -9 (supra) that this time allowance will be given to the petitioners at par with Store Personnel provided they work for 8 hours. The petitioners apparently work for 8 hours and in face of that Annexure -9, denying time allowance was again an injustice caused to the petitioners.;