JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

1. Heard the learned senior advocates representing the parties. The appellant, Coal India Limited (CIL) was the respondent before the writ court and has challenged the order of the writ court, dated 09.09.2019, in the present proceeding.

2. A brief factual background to filing of the writ petition is that the writ petitioners were working in the CIL on a non-executive grade. They are diploma holders and were stagnating in a particular grade for more than a decade. They moved before the authority raising a grievance in this regard. A sub-committee was thus constituted by the CIL on 14.02.2008, to consider their grievance and examine an issue regarding career growth of the writ petitioners. Pursuant to report of the Sub-Committee, the board of directors of the appellant in the 255th meeting took a decision to allow an option to the writ petitioners, who all were diploma holders stagnating for 15 years or more as non-executive staff, for availing benefit of upgradation to E-1 Grade.

3. Learned senior advocate for the CIL submits that the decision of the Board was a one-time measure to upgrade the post of the writ petitioners, so as to ameliorate the situation being faced by them on account of stagnation. It is submitted that such upgradation under such special consideration cannot be compared, or confused with a promotion. He submitted that nearly 2500 diploma holders similar to the writ petitioners were upgraded as Subordinate Engineers, in Executive Grade E-1, in 2010-11. The benefit of such decision was granted to those, including the petitioners who had submitted an option undertaking for the same, on a prescribed proforma.

4. The petitioners consciously availed such benefit. Subsequently they started raising a claim for benefits being granted to others who chose not to avail the benefit of upgradation, and continued to serve in the Non-Executive Cadre. The petitioners alleged that those who continued in the Non-Executive Cadre were getting a higher salary than petitioners who were placed in the Executive Cadre.

5. It is submitted by the learned senior advocate that the upgradation was granted to the writ petitioners pursuant to a policy decision taken by the appellant authority on the request and representation by the writ petitioners. The policy was for the benefit of the writ petitioners. He submitted that having availed such benefit, the writ petitioners were not in a position to raise any grievance. However, CIL took note of the grievance raised by the writ petitioners. The authorities after making a comparative assessment, taking into consideration the cumulative benefits being given to the writ petitioners; and to those who continued in the Non-Executive Cadre, were of the view that petitioners were not at a financial loss. However, the authorities gave an option to the writ petitioners to return to the non-executive grade and opt for the same, if they were of the view that the same was providing a more beneficial salary. The writ petitioners chose not to avail the benefit of such decision.

6. In the above noted facts and circumstances, it is submitted that no case of any vested right is made out, to a particular scale and the petitioners’ claim to parity with the non-executive grade is not sustainable. The submission is supported by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. G.Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. reported in (1989) 2 SCC 290.

7. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the CIL that the action of the appellant does not lack bona fide in any sense, but is an action taken by them for the benefit of the writ petitioners. The writ Court is normally expected to refrain from interfering with a bona fide policy decision, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of such submission the learned senior advocate has relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.