If Court constituted committee recommends promotion retrospectively it must respected : Jammu and Kashmir High Court
The Corporation is free to pass orders as to the petitioner’s entitlement or otherwise to the Supervisor’s grade, as warranted under law, after complying with the principles of Natural Justice. This was held in the judgment passed by a single judge bench comprising of HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA in the matter of Ravinder Kumar Bhan V. Ravinder Kumar Bhan [SWP No. 1966/2011], dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a challenging an order, vide which his claim for Supervisor’s grade has been rejected. his case that he was adjusted as a Supervisor in the P.P. Division of the Distribution and Sales of Pesticides/Fungicides Wing of the Corporation and for the last 26 years, he is performing his duties as Supervisor. Although, similarly situated persons have been granted the grade of Supervisor, but the same is denied to him.  In their objections, it was submitted by the respondents that petitioner was promoted to the post of Supervisor after the recommendations of Grievance Committee constituted by the Corporation, but the order was stayed on a petition filed by his senior colleagues. These senior colleagues have approached the Corporation to settle their cases, and have also withdrawn their petition. The order was rescinded only to consider the promotion cases of all the aggrieved senior employees as Supervisors. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance report filed on behalf of the Corporation in contempt petition, the respondents have admitted that petitioner was entitled to the promotion as Supervisor retrospectively. After hearing both sides, the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir allowed the petition and held order dated 20.08.2011 is quashed and that the petitioner is entitled to the grade and other benefits of the post of Supervisor retrospectively, in terms of the recommendations of the Committee constituted for settling the case of the petitioner. Click here to view judgement Judgement reviewed by – Vaishnavi Raman
 SWP No. 1966 2011 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU Pronounced on: 08.06.2020 Ravinder Kumar Bhan ….Petitioner(s) Through: Petitioner present in person. State of J&K and others .…Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA JUDGE 01. The petitioner was working as a Supervisor in Pesticides Distribution Wing of the Jammu and Kashmir State Agro Industries Development Corporation and was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1350 50 1500 EB 75 2400 vide order No. Agro Adm CJAIDCL dated 06.12.1996. This order was challenged by Mohammad Sami Jan Ved Prakash Chowdhary Mohammad Sultan Mir and Mohd. Yousuf Dar in a writ petition bearing SWP No. 5578 1996. On the assurance given by respondents Corporation that they would consider the matter afresh this petition was withdrawn. 02. The respondents vide order No. AGRO ADMAIDCL of 2005 dated 21.10.2005 rescinded the earlier order dated 06.12.1996. Aggrieved of this order dated 21.10.2005 the petitioner questioned the same by filing a writ petition bearing SWP No. 1535 2005. This petition was disposed of vide order dated 08.07.2010 by holding as under: “Order No. AGRO ADMAIDCL of 2005 dated 21.10.2005 issued by the Jammu and Kashmir State Agro 2 SWP No. 1966 2011 Industries Development Corporation Limited is therefore set aside and quashed leaving the Corporation however free to pass such orders as to the petitioner’s entitlement or otherwise to the Supervisor’s grade as warranted under law after complying with the principles of Natural 03. The respondents in compliance to order of this Court considered the entitlement of petitioner to the grade of Supervisor and issued another order dated 20.08.2011 which reads as under: “................Now therefore the claim of Sh. R. K. Bhan for the post of Supervisor is rejected at this stage and he will be considered for promotion as Supervisor alongwith other eligible officials senior to him as and when the posts of Supervisor become available and are filled by the Corporation as per rules” 04. Petitioner thus is aggrieved of the aforesaid order vide which his claim for Supervisor’s grade has been rejected. It is his case that he was adjusted as a Supervisor in the P.P. Division of the Distribution and Sales of Pesticides Fungicides Wing of the Corporation and for the last 26 years he is performing his duties as Supervisor. Although similarly situated persons have been granted the grade of Supervisor but the same is denied to him. 05. In their objections it is submitted by the respondents that petitioner was promoted to the post of Supervisor after the recommendations of Grievance Committee constituted by the Corporation but the order was stayed on a petition filed by his senior colleagues. These senior colleagues have approached the Corporation to settle their cases and have also withdrawn their petition. The order was rescinded only to consider the promotion cases of all the aggrieved senior employees as Supervisors. 3 SWP No. 1966 2011 06. An application was filed by the petitioner on 02.08.2018 for placing on record an order No. Agro AdmAIDCL of 2017 dated 27.05.2017 and compliance report submitted on behalf of Managing Director J&K State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. in contempt petition No. 642 2017 in SWP No. 1345 2005 titled ‘Ghulam Nabi Dhobi and another V. State of J&K. Vide order dated 07.09.2018 these documents obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act were taken on record. 07. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance report filed on behalf of the Corporation in contempt petition the respondents have admitted that petitioner was entitled to the promotion as Supervisor retrospectively. Para 4 and 5 of the compliance report reads as under: “4. That in compliance to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court the matter has been perused and examined by the answering respondent and on the examination of the matter the answering respondent found that an identical matter came up before the Jammu wing of this Hon’ble Court in which the Hon’ble High Court at Jammu has passed the judgment in the case of Sh. R. K. Bhan and in compliance to the said judgment a committee has been constituted for settlement of the case. The said committee after e3xamination of the record came to the conclusion that officials including Sh. R. K. Bhan who were dropped earlier should also be given similar treatment by promoting him as Supervisor retrospectively. AS such the judgment has been implemented in letter and spirit in case of R. K. Bhan. 5. That since the matter in hand is identical and is of similar nature and the petitioner is similarly situated as that of Sh. R. K. Bhan. As such the matter has been referred to the aforesaid committee for compliance of order mentioned supra. The said committee after examining the record found that the case of the petitioner is similarly situated to that of R. K. Bhan and is 4 SWP No. 1966 2011 genuine as such recommends petitioner’s promotion as Supervisor retrospectively.” 08. Vide order No. Agro AdmAIDCL of 2017 dated 27.05.2017 a Committee was constituted for settlement of the case of the petitioner. The Committee examined the case of the petitioner and recommended as under: “.................In view of the above the committee reached to the conclusion that the case is as simple as anything when all the officials who worked the Distribution of sales of pesticides fungicides wing P P Division were promoted to the post of supervisor retrospectively we may also place the aggrieved retiree Sh. R K Bhan in the grade of supervisor retrospectively thus justice is met. Submitted for consideration and orders please” The respondents in the contempt petition also sought time to comply the same 09. In view of the recommendations of the Committee constituted by the respondents this petition is allowed and order dated 20.08.2011 is quashed. Petitioner is entitled to the grade and other benefits of the post of Supervisor retrospectively terms of the recommendations of the Committee constituted for settling the case of the petitioner. 10. Disposed of. 08.06.2020 SUNIL II Whether the order is speaking: Whether the order is reportable: Yes Yes No Sindhu Sharma) Judge 