Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Mohd. Yaqoob Mir, J.
All India NHPC Diploma Engineers & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
NHPC Ltd. & Ors. - Respondent
LPA No. 328/2000 & LPA No. 355/2000
Decided On : 18 February, 2010
Classification - Promotion Policy - Rule 36(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999 - The court discussed the classification based on educational qualification for promotion to higher posts and the permissibility of discriminating Diploma Holder Engineers from Degree Holder Engineers for promotional avenues beyond a particular level. The court referred to various constitutional judgments and held that classification based on educational qualification must have nexus with the objectives of the policy and the nature of duties and responsibilities of the posts beyond a certain level.
Fact of the Case:
The National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Limited (NHPC) introduced a new promotion policy that restricted promotional avenues for Diploma Holder Engineers to level E-5 only. The aggrieved employees filed writ petitions challenging the new policy, arguing that it was discriminatory and altered their service conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that NHPC had the discretion to make changes in the promotion policy, but such changes must have nexus with the internal conditions and external environments and be necessary in the overall interest of the organization. The court held that the new policy did not suffer from any infirmity and that the classification based on educational qualification was correct.
Issues: The issues revolved around the permissibility of classification based on educational qualification for promotion and the discrimination between Diploma Holder Engineers and Degree Holder Engineers for promotional avenues beyond a particular level.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that classification based on educational qualification must have nexus with the objectives of the policy and the nature of duties and responsibilities of the posts beyond a certain level. It emphasized that the policy decision of the Corporation should not be interfered with unless it is specifically pleaded and proved that the duties/responsibilities and nature of the job beyond a certain level do not require any higher qualification.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the Writ Court and remanded the case back for deciding the matter afresh after permitting the parties to supplement their pleadings in the light of the court's observations.
"1. Whether classification based on educational qualification alone is permissible or nexus with the objectives of the statute or policy has to be established while making promotion to the higher post?
2. Whether Diploma Holder Engineers can be discriminated from Degree Holder Engineers for the purpose of promotional avenues beyond a particular level by prescribing higher qualification."
2. In terms of Rule 36(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999, the matter has been placed before Honble Chief Justice and thereafter has been assigned. That is how these LPAs are placed before this Bench.
3. To precisely notice the factual aspect of the matter shall be advantageous for determination of the points of difference in its right perspective:
National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter for short referred to as "NHPC") is a Government company setup with the object of planning, promoting and organising the integrated and efficient development of Hydro Power in all the spheres including planning, investigation, generation and sale of bulk generated power at Hydro Power Stations.
The employees of NHPC were governed by the "promotion policy and rules" (hereinafter referred to as "the Old Policy"). In terms whereof, for purposes of promotion, employees of NHPC have been classified in the groups. For brevity the said Rule pertaining to classification is reproduced here-under:-
GROUP SALARY GRADE GRADE CODE QUOTA FOR PROMOTION
a) Non-Supervisory Group:
i) Unskilled/Semi-skilled Rs. 1100- 1300 Rs. 1125-1555 Rs. 1150- 1640 W1 W2 W3 From unskilled/ Semi-skilled to skilled group 20%
ii) Skilled Rs. 1180-2030 Rs. 1300-2305 Rs. 1450-2440 W4 W5 W6
(b) Supervisory Group: Rs. 1450-2440 Rs. 1640-2900 Rs.2075-3265 Rs.2000-3200 Rs.2250-3740 S1 S2 S3 From skilled to Supervisory Group 20%
(c) Executive/Management Group Rs.2000-3500 Rs.2250-3740 Rs.2200-4000 Rs.2650-5100 Rs.3000-4500 Rs.3700-5900 Rs.3000-5000 Rs.4600-6470 Rs.3700-5000 Rs.5200-6875 Rs.4500-5700 Rs. 5750-6975 Rs. 5100-6700 Rs.6500-7725 Rs. 5900-6700 Rs. 7250-8250 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 From Supervisory to Executive Group: a) For Tech.Deptts: i) Graduates 25% ii) Non-Graduates (Upto and including the scale of Rs.3000-4500/ CDA/ 3700-5900 (IDA) (b) For F&A & P&A Departments 75%
With the passage of time NHPC introduced a new policy captioned "Revised Promotion Policy and Rules for NHPC Executives" (hereinafter referred to as New Policy) vide its Part-I office order No.14/97 dated 5.3.1997. In terms thereof Rule 5 will provide grade code and scale of pay for the cluster. Same is reproduced here-under:
Cluster Grade Code Scale of pay (Rs.)
A. E-2, E-2A, E-3, E-4 & E-5 4000-7475(IDA)
2200-4000(CDA)/ 4500-8250(IDA)
3000-4500(CDA/ 5650-9400(IDA)
3000-5000(CDA)/ 6600-9600(IDA)
3700-500(CDA)/ 7500-9900(IDA)
Furthermore for promotion minimum qualifying period has been prescribed in Rule 8. Same is reproduced here-under:-
Salary Grade + Qualifying Period +
From To Diploma Holders/ Graduates (Years) Engineering Graduates/ Professionally qualified. (Years)
E-1 E-2 4 3
E-2 E-2A 1 1
E-2A E-3 5 4
E-3 E-4 5 4
E-4 E-5 5 4
E-5 E-6 -- 3
E-6 E-7 -- 3
E-7 E-8 -- 4
E-8 E-9 -- 2
4. The Degree Holder Engineers as well as members of Accountancy branch felt aggrieved of Rule 8, 9.8, 10.1, 10.4, 11.3, 14.1, 14.2, 18.8, 19.1 and 19.2, therefore, filed two writ petitions i.e. SWP No.515/97 and SWP No.885/97.
5. In terms of Rule 8 of the New Policy promotional avenues to the Diploma Holder Engineers/other Graduates have been restricted to level E-5 only. In addition for promotion from E-1 to E-5, different qualifying periods have been prescribed as is clearly indicated in Rule 8 quoted hereinabove.
6. The first contention of the appellants is that the respondents could not introduce New Policy wi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
