Aggrieved by the rejection of the request of the petitioner for cadre change and consideration of promotion, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
2. The petitioner joined the Food Corporation of India as Pharmacist/Compounder in the year 1982, which comes under the Miscellaneous Cadre Category-III. Admittedly, there is no promotion avenue in the said cadre for Pharmacist. The petitioner alleges that though she was posted as Pharmacist, she has been doing the duties of Assistant Grade-II since 1996; and in the year 2000, she has been assigned with the duties of Assistant Grade-I. The petitioner points out that her juniors, who were posted as Hindi Typists in the same cadre and category and lower in scale, were considered for promotion in the General and Administrative Cadre; and they were granted promotion; and after promotion, they are now holding the post of Manager and Assistant Grade-I in the General and Administrative Cadre. The petitioner would allege that the request made by her for cadre change and consideration of promotion were turned down by respondents 1 to 3 for the reason that the Regulation does not provide for that. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
3. In the detailed counter affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation, it was contended that the petitioner was designated as Senior Pharmacist through a notional grade promotion in the year 2003; and since then, she is drawing ₹8,750/- in the pay scale of ₹5160-
9500. It was pointed out that when she was designated as Senior Pharmacist during the year 2003, there was no Dispensary in the office; and her service was utilized in the other sections. However, it was contended that, that does not mean that the petitioner was designated as the employee in the particular grade, where she was asked to work. Therefore, it was contended that the designation of the petitioner has never changed her grade or cadre; and there is no provision in the FCI Staff Regulation for change of designation of any employee during the period of service.
4. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner contended that as per Regulation 10, promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority as indicated in Appendix-I of Staff Regulations; and Regulation 10 does not restrict promotion within the cadre. The petitioner also produced Ext.P15, which is the copy of the degree certificate issued by the University of Kerala, claiming that she is entitled to be appointed as Assistant Grade-II long back. According to her, had she been given promotion as Assistant Grade-I in the General Administration Cadre, she could have been considered for promotion to the next higher post as Manager in Category-II and even to higher posts in that cadre.
5. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation quite in extenso.
6. It is an admitted fact that there is no promotional avenue in the Miscellaneous Cadre of Pharmacist. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Ext.R2(a), by which certain Hindi Typists in the same cadre and category and lower in scale were given promotion in the General and Administrative Cadre. In answer to the said submission, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation invited my attention to para 10 of the counter affidavit, which gives satisfactory explanation for the same. It was pointed out that the work of Hindi Typists is a support to the implementation of the official language 'Hindi', which spreads in all cadres. It was argued that the Hindi Typists are bound to carry out the work of English Typists also; and therefore, they are considered as equal to English Typists. All Typists have the promotion channel as clerical staff; and thus, they are promoted as Assistant Grade II in General Cadre; so submitted by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. The averment in the writ petition that there is no promotional avenue for the post of Hindi Typist is false and misleading; according to the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.
7. It is relevant to note that the petitioner has more than 31 years of service in the respondent Corporation and even though she was recruited in the Miscellaneous Cadre as Pharmacist, she was doing other works during major portion of her service period. The denial of the petitioner's request is on account of the fact that it is not provided in the Regulations. But, when it comes to Hindi Typists in the Miscellaneous Cadre, the respondent Corporation admitted them in the General and Administrative Cadre to give promotion one after the other. Though there was justification for the said cadre change, this Court is of the definite view that the case of the petitioner also requires a re-look by the respondent Corporation in the light of the cadre change given to Hindi Typists. It is also relevant to note that when the provisional seniority list was published, the petitioner was put under the Engineering Cadre, where also there is no scope for promotion to the petitioner.
8. Therefore, on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the definite view that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to ventilate her grievance before the respondent Corporation by way of a proper representation in the light of the promotion given to Hindi Typists as evident from Ext.R2(a).
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent Corporation within a period of three months from today.
In the event of filing such a representation, the respondent Corporation shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in the light of what has been stated above.
The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE bka/-