Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioners being non- technical employees have called in question the Clause no.7 of the office order dated 30.12.2006, vide Annexure-2 to the writ application, and have prayed for quashing of the said clause. Further prayer has been made for reduction of the eligibility period for consideration for promotion of other categories of workmen (non technical/Para Medical Staff) at the ratio of the Technical employees since in case of technical staff one year has been reduced for eligibility. Further prayer has been made to maintain the parity in service norms between technical and non-technical supervisors/employees of the Corporation.
(2.) The facts, as has been described in the writ application, in a nutshell is that in view of long standing dispute and inconsistency in the time bound promotion to the level of supervisory post an order was passed under Section 10A of the I.D. Act, which inter alia provided time bound promotion on the basis of the recommendation of Dr. Binod Kumar and the management accepted the recommendation and issued circular dated 14.10.1985 wherein it was circulated that the recommendation of Dr. Binod Kumar shall be binding and all future promotion shall be made on the basis of the same. In spite of issuance of circular dated 14.10.1985, since the report of Dr. Binod Kumar Committee was not implemented in right prospective, the matter went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Nani Gopal Sarkar vs. H.E.C, 1990 AIR(SC) 1391 wherein the benefit of time bound promotion was extended to the petitioner as per Binod Kumar report. As per the Binod Kumar recommendation there will be one tire promotion, was introduced for all technical and non technical employees and there would be one year difference for non supervisory level employees, fixing six years for promotion of technical employees at the non supervisory level and seven years for non technical stream. In view of the implementation of the Binod Kumar Committee report the petitioners being non technical employees were given promotion after seven years and the details of promotion of the petitioners have been given in para 11 of the writ application. It has been averred that a circular dated 31.12.2006 has been issued by the respondent no.3 whereby the eligibility period for consideration of promotion of the existing technical workers with effect from 31.12.2006 and onwards has been fixed for five years. By virtue of the said circular, the eligibility period for consideration of promotion to the technical employees has been reduced from six years to five years whereas eligibility period for consideration of promotion of other categories of workers (non-technical/ para medical staff) ordered to remain unchanged, the copy of the said circular is at Annexure-2 to the writ application. It has further been averred that in pursuance to the memorandum of agreement dated 27.11.2006 and Clause (6) of the memorandum of agreement dated 26.12.2006, as many as 105 Assistant Forman have been promoted to the post of Jr. Manager vide office order dated 27.01.2007 as per Annexure-3 to the writ application. It has further been asserted that some of the petitioners were promoted to the post of Supervisory Grade along with other technical employees vide same promotion order dated 24.08.2004 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Consequent upon the changed situation in view of the circular dated 30.12.2006, the technical officers who were promoted along with the petitioner no.1 again were promoted to the post of Jr. Manager (E1) with effect from 30.12.2006 whereas non technical employees have not been give promotion. The promotion of the technical officer has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application. It has further been submitted that all the technical officers were promoted to the post of Jr. Manager whereas the petitioners being non technical have to wait for further four years time to get their promotion. Therefore, it has been submitted that consequent upon the changed situation after office order dated 31.12.2006 the eligibility period for consideration in case of technical employees vis-à-vis the non technical employees up to supervisory level is five years and seven years respectively. Being aggrieved by the circular dated 31.12.2006 the petitioner submitted several representations ventilating their grievance relating to technical and non technical employees of the Corporation but the same representation vide Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ application having fallen on deaf ears, have compelled the petitioners to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.
(3.) A supplementary affidavit dated 09.05.2012 has been filed by the petitioners annexing Dr. Binod Kumar report as Annexure-8 and on the basis of the Circular no.53/1985 dated 14.10.1985 has been issued by the HEC accepting the recommendation of the Dr. Binod Kumar report as per Annexure-9 to the supplementary affidavit. The circular No.1/2006 dated 31.12.2006 which has been issued by the respondent no.3 reducing the eligibility period for consideration of promotion accepting the technical workers from six years to five years is impugned in this writ application. During pendency of the writ application, the respondents have again reduced the eligibility period for consideration for promotion of technical supervisor vide order dated 30.12.2011whereby seven years of regular service regarding technical supervisor appearing in paragraph-5(b) of the circular no.01/2006 dated 30.12.2006 is substituted with the words 'Four years regular service' as per Annexure-10 to the supplementary affidavit, therefore, by virtue of the said circular eligibility period has been reduced from five years to four years for technical supervisors.;