Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
DEBARAJ PADHI & OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/09/1995
BENCH:
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
BENCH:
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
VENKATASWAMI K. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (6) 41 JT 1995 (9) 521
1995 SCALE (5)290
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
K. VENKATASWAMI, J.
These two special leave petitions are preferred against
the common judgment and order in e.j.c. Nos. 263 and 879 of
1991 dated 13.9.1993 passed by the High Court of Orissa at
Cuttack.
The petitioners who were unsuccessful before the High
Court are the employees of Rourkela Steel Plant. Being
aggrieved by the promotion policy and rules of Steel
Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the
’SAIL’) as adopted in the year 1986 superseding the earlier
policy holding the field, they challenged the same before
the High Court. Incidentally they also challenged the
promotions made on the basis of the impugned promotion
policy. Be it noted, it does not appear from the judgment of
the High Court that there was any challenge of promotion
given to private opposite parties individually.
Before the High Court several contentions were raised
challenging the impugned promotion policy. However, the
learned Judges while upholding the promotion policy impugned
before them made certain directions in paragraph 12 and
observations in paragraphs 15 and 19 of their judgment.
Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, in view of the directions in paragraph 12 and
observations made in paragraphs 15 and 19 of the High Court
judgment, fairly stated before us that he is not challenging
the legality and validity of the impugned promotion policy.
Nevertheless he wanted to challenge the promotions given to
respondents 4 to 17 in one Special Leave Petition and 4 to
31 in other/second Special Leave Petition. When we pointed
out that no such individual challenge to promotion of the
above mentioned respondents was made before the High Court
and in view of the fact that there is no challenge to the
promotion policy before us, there is no scope for such
contention, the learned counsel submitted that before the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
High Court the promotions were also challenged. As we stated
earlier, promotions as a whole were challenged on the ground
that promotion policy impugned before the High Court was
illegal, arbitrary and liable to be struck down. If that
basis does not now survive in view of the directions given
by the High Court, there does not remain any serious
challenge to individual promotions given to the respondents
mentioned above.
We may also point out that in view of the fact that
individual promotions were not challenged, presumably the
concerned respondents did not appear before the High Court
as well as in this Court in spite of notice. Further we find
from the judgment of the High Court that the learned Judges
have gone into the documents made available before them and
recorded a finding as follows :-
"From what has been stated above, we are
satisfied that the SAIL has taken all
efforts humanly possible to see that a
true appraisal is made of an executive
before he is promoted from the post of
Assistant Manager to Deputy Manager."
In view of the above finding and in the absence of any
other material to hold otherwise, we do not think there is
any cause for interference.
In the result, the Special Leave Petitions fail and
are, accordingly, dismissed.