{"id":304364,"date":"2023-10-11T13:30:35","date_gmt":"2023-10-11T08:00:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=304364"},"modified":"2023-10-19T10:48:14","modified_gmt":"2023-10-19T05:18:14","slug":"cal-hc-directs-to-rectify-employees-re-designation-on-violation-of-article-14-of-constitution-of-india-scc-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/cal-hc-directs-to-rectify-employees-re-designation-on-violation-of-article-14-of-constitution-of-india-scc-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"Calcutta High Court directs rectification of employee\u2019s re-designation and retiral benefit calculation on violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/span> In a case challenging prejudiced actions of the Damodar Valley Corporation (the Corporation) in terms of re-designation and re-fixation of retiral benefits, a single-judge bench comprising of Partha Sarathi Chatterjee,*<\/span> J., held that the petitioner had been prejudiced by the non-communication of her final grading in APARs, which resulted in the deferment of her re-designations and the reduction of her salary. The Court that held the corporation’s actions were arbitrary and violated Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/p>\n

In the instant matter, the petitioner applied for the position of Management Trainee in the Corporation in response to an advertisement and went through the selection process. After successfully passing the written test and interview, the petitioner was appointed as a Management Trainee and eventually promoted to the position of Personnel Officer (M-1 level) and later as Assistant Director (Personnel) (M-2 Level).<\/p>\n

In 1996, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet alleging that she had not disclosed her completion of only a one-year Management Diploma Course. The petitioner challenged this charge-sheet through a writ petition.<\/p>\n

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was due for promotion to the position of Deputy Director of Personnel (HR) (M-3 Level) in 1998. The respondents decided to adopt a sealed cover procedure for this promotion. In 1999, the writ petition was disposed of, the charge-sheet was quashed, and a direction was given to complete the sealed cover procedure and effect the promotion. The respondents appealed against the order, but it was dismissed in 2009.<\/p>\n

The petitioner’s re-designations to M-3 Level and M-4 Level were due in 1998 and 2005, respectively. However, in 2018, the petitioner learned that her re-designations had been deferred for two years without her knowledge. The deferral was based on the petitioner’s final grading in Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APAR) for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97, which were graded as “Satisfactory” instead of “Good”. The petitioner requested rectification of this error, but her requests went unanswered, and she received a memo stating she had drawn excess pay.<\/p>\n

The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> to challenge the validity of above-mentioned actions taken by the respondents. The petitioner, after nearly 32 years of service, was about to retire and claimed that she had been a victim of bias and arbitrary re-designation.<\/p>\n

Moot Point<\/p>\n