Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing office order dated 26.06.2009 whereby case of the petitioner for his retrospective promotion on the ground of suppression has been rejected; and for direction upon the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the equivalent posts and pay retrospectively on and from the date when his junior, namely, Sri Bhagwati Prasad-respondent no. 4 was promoted.
(2.) The facts, which are necessary for adjudication of the instant writ application, in brief is that petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 29.05.1971 and after qualifying written test held on on 18.12.1972 promoted on the post of U.D.C w.e.f 01.01.1973 vide office order dated 30.12.1972 and thereafter was appointed on the post of 'Office Superintendent' w.e.f 13.10.1976 vide office order dated 19/25.10.1976. It has been averred that there was no definite promotion policy in NIFFT for a long time, against which the employees' Association submitted charter of demand to the Management and after considering the demand a settlement was arrived at in course of conciliation proceeding held on 15.04.1978 between the representatives of the Management of NIFFT and the NIFFT employees Association in presence of the then Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi. In pursuance to the said settlement dated 15.04.1978, the case of the petitioner including others were considered and they were promoted on the post of Superintendent vide office order dated 25.04.1978. But, all of a sudden, the respondents-authorities vide order dated 10th November, 1978 rescinded office order dated 25.04.1978 reverting the members and staffs including the petitioner to their respective substantive posts held by them prior to issuance of promotion order dated 25.04.1978. Against that the employees went on strike, which entailed the intervention of Chairman of Institute and by way of settlement arrived at on 05.09.1981, the respondents agreed to promote all the employees who were then promoted as a result of agreement/settlement with notional seniority from the date of supersession. Pursuant to that settlement, the petitioner along with others were promoted on the post of Office Superintendent w.e.f 17.09.1976 vide office order dated 16.11.1981. Aggrieved thereof, respondent no. 4 challenged the aforesaid settlement dated 5th September, 1981 and office order dated 16.11.1981 by way of filing C.W.J.C No. 660 of 1982(R) so that he might be considered to be senior to the petitioner and others. But the said writ application was dismissed; thereby it is alleged that seniority position of the petitioner over respondent no. 4 to the post of Office Superintendent was restored and confirmed for all practical purposes.
(3.) It has further been averred in the writ application that respondent-Institute is bound by the Rules and Regulation framed by Government of India with regard to promotion as per the provision contained in Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It has been averred that as per Rule 8, as mentioned in Swamy's Handbook 1999 with regard to percentage of reservation in promotion for scheduled castes/scheduled tribes, the prescribed percentage was directed to be continued beyond 15.11.1997 but violating all norms and rules, respondent no. 4 was allowed to supersede the petitioner by granting him promotion on ad-hoc basis to officiate as Accountant vide order dated 17.01.1989 and later on promoted to the post of Stores and Purchase Officer vide office order dated 09.10.1997.;