IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHEREJEE WPA 13120 of 2019 SWAGATA BOSE VS.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

For the Petitioner ::

Mr. Swagata Bose …. Petitioner-in-person.

For the State :

Manas Kundu, Mr. Nizanur Rahaman For the DPL

.....Advocates

: Mr. Sujit Sankar Koley

.....Advocate

Heard on : 21.05.2025

Judgment on : 2nd July, 2025

Arindam Mukherjee, J.:

Petitioner’s Case:-

1) Pursuant to an advertisement issued by Durgapur Projects Limited (in short ‘DPL’), the petitioner applied for being appointed as a Management Trainee (Computer Science) in DPL. On being successful, the petitioner was appointed as a management trainee vide an appointment letter dated 18th December, 2001 (annexure P-1 at page 45 A of the writ petition). On satisfactory completion of the training period as a management trainee, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer (System) in the accounts department of DPL on a basic pay of Rs.8,000/- per month in the scale of Rs.8,000 – 13,500/- plus other admissible allowances with effect from 27^th December, 2002. The appointment letter was issued on 2nd January, 2003 (annexure P-2 at page-46 of the writ petition). The post was subsequently re- designated as Assistant Manager (System) The petitioner was promoted to the post of Manager (System) on 25th June, 2007 (the Offer Letter is on annexure P-3 at page 47 of the writ petition).

2) The writ petitioner says that at the time of his joining, there was two promotional avenues which were functioning in parallel, on being the normal panel promotion and the other being Assured Promotion Scheme (APS) introduced in 2001 at DPL. A new promotional policy under the name and style Career Progression Scheme (CPS) was introduced in DPL on 27th July, 2010 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 2009 by replacing APS. The CPS is annexed at pages 66-72 of the writ petition. According to the petitioner under Clause B(d) of the CPS (at page 68 of the writ petition), the petitioner having received a promotion prior to the CPS coming into the effect is deemed to have got the first promotion as per DPL and was entitled to move the next promotional post on completion of continuous and satisfactory service of 16 years reckoned from the first entry in DPL’s regular service. As the petitioner as he had 3 years of continuous and satisfactory service in the post of Assistant Manager (System) the 16 years period was calculated by DPL from the first promotion under CPS. The 16 years period was calculated from 27th December, 2002 and as such was givens promotion to the next post with effect from 27th December, 2018 ignoring the provisions contained in Clause 14 of CPS at page 70 of the writ petition. The petitioner says that he had joined as Assistant Engineer (System) and was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (System) with effect from 25^th June, 2007. Having continuous and satisfactory service in the post of Manager (System), the petitioner became entitled to a promotion on completion of 8 years in the said post as per clause 14. The petitioner, therefor, became entitled to promotion on expiry of 8 years from 25th June, 2007. The petitioner, however, was not given such promotion after 8 years from 25th June, 2007 but was promoted as Senior Manager (IT Cell) with effect from 27th December, 2018 by following clause B(d) which is not applicable to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the DPL applied the wrong promotional method by giving him promotion on completion of 16 years from the entry into the DPL’s regular service with effect from 27th December, 2018 instead of 27th June, 2015.

3) The petitioner then by referring to Clause C (14) of the CPS also contends that the petitioner is entitled to relaxation of Clause B (d) as he fulfils all other conditions for such relaxation. The petitioner says that under Clause C (14), the petitioner received the first promotion “by any other proce