IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7093 of 2016 ----- Pranav Kumar, son of late Jay Nandan Jha, r/o Gourkhuti, P.O. Bhowra, P.S. Bhowra, District-Dhanbad …… Petitioner 1. The Chairman, Coal India Limited, having its office at Coal Bhawan, 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700001. 2. The Director (P & IR), Coal India Limited, having its office at Coal Bhawan, 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700001. 3. The Chief General Manager (Personnel), Coal India Limited, having its office at Coal Bhawan, 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700001. 4. The General Manager (Personnel) Coal India Limited, having its office at Coal Bhawan, 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700001. 5. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad. 6. Director Personnel (Headquarter), M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad. ….……… Respondents CORAM :SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the BCCL : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate …...... 09 /29.01.2025: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed to regularize him in the post of Grade-III in terms of Implementation Instruction No. 29 of National Coal Wage Agreement. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that after joining BCCL w.e.f. 12.12.1995 the petitioner was working as a computer operator, thus, in terms of the aforesaid circular, since the petitioner is a graduate and is performing clerical job, he is entitled for regularization in the post of clerk, Grade-III and should be paid the salary as per the scale fixed for clerk Grade-III and not as per the scale of Category-I Mazdoor. He refers to the provisions of Implementation Instruction No. 29 in his support. It is his case that his prayer has been rejected on the ground that he was not a graduate on the date of his appointment but the Implementation Instruction No. 29 does not differentiate between a matriculate and a -1- graduate. Admittedly, the petitioner is performing a clerical job, thus whether he is a graduate or matriculate is of no relevance, therefore, he may be regularized as clerk Grade-III. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of BCCL submits that at the time of entering in service, the petitioner was a matriculate and was not a graduate. It is only the graduates who can be entrusted the work of clerks. Since the petitioner was not entrusted the work of a clerk being an under-graduate, as per the said Instruction he is not entitled to be regularized as clerk Grade-III. The impugned order needs no interference. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that Clause (b) of the instruction clearly suggests that a person has to be appointed as a clerk to get Grade-III pay scale. Category-I pay scale for a clerk is a temporary phase, that is only for one year, the period when he undergoes training as a clerk. The substantive appointment has to be in clerk Grade-III to get the scale, which is not a case in hand, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim for the pay scale of Grade- III as a matter of right as his appointment was against Category-1 and not against clerk Grade-III. 5. From the arguments of the parties, I find that it is admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed under Clause 9.4.2. and 9.4.3. of National Coal Wage Agreement-IV and Land Loosers Scheme. The petitioner was initially appointed on 6.12.1994 and admittedly at the time of his appointment he was a matriculate as he had completed his graduation only on 25.7.1995 i.e. after joining service. The appointment letter of the petitioner has been brought on record as Annexure-2 wherein the petitioner was shown to be appointed on compassionate ground in terms of Clause 9.4.2. of National Coal Wage Agreement and has been selected as General Mazdoor Category-I. This fact is undisputed. 6. The petitioner is trying to take benefit of Implementation Instructions No. 29 dated 27th September, 1991. The aforesaid Implementation Instruction is in respect of appointment of educated new appointees under Clause 9.4.2. and 9.4.3. of National Coal Wage -2- Agreement-IV and also under the Land Looser Scheme. Since the petitioner has been appointed on compassionate ground admittedly this Implementation Instruction is applicable so far as the petitioner is concerned. The said Instruction provides that matriculates will be appointed as trainees for different trades keeping in view the man power requirements and such training will be for the period of one year and those persons will be placed in Category-1. After successful completion of training, they will be placed in regular category/scale of pay of job. This provision (a) of the aforesaid Implementation Instruction suggests that after training the matriculates will be placed in Category-1 and they will get the pay-scale of Category-1. 7. Clause (b) of the said Instruction provides that for clerical jobs the minimum qualification will be matriculation but preference will be given to graduates. It also provides that initially the person who is selected for clerical job will be given Category-1 wages, because for the one year the selected candidate will undergo training and only after successful completion of training, the said candidate, who was selected for clerical job (emphasis supplied by me) will be regularized in clerk Grade-III. This Clause gives preference to the graduates over matriculates in selection of candidates for clerical jobs, though the minimum qualification for clerical job is also matriculate. It is necessary to quote Clause (a) and Clause (b) of the Implementation Instruction No.29 which are quoted herein below: “(a) Matriculates will be appointed as trainees for different trades keeping in view the requirement of manpower, educational qualification and aptitude of the incumbents. The training will be for a period of one year during which period they will be placed in Category-I. After successful completion of training, they will be placed in regular category/ scale of pay of the job. (b) For clerical jobs, matriculation will be the minimum qualification. However, if Graduates are available, they will be preferred for clerical jobs. Initially for one year the candidates selected for clerical jobs will be given Category-I wages because during this period practically they would be taking on-the-job training. After successful completion of one year, they will be regularized as Clerk Grade-III.” 8. The petitioner is claiming regularization and pay scale of Grade-III post based on Clause (b) of the said circular. Admittedly, at the time of joining, the petitioner was a matriculate and he was not a -3- graduate. As per said Clause (b), preference for clerical jobs is given to the graduates over the matriculates. Conjoint reading of Clause (a) and (b) establishes that matriculates can be selected for different trades will be placed in Category-1. In the instant case on perusal of appointment letter issued to the petitioner, I find that he was appointed as Category-1 Mazdoor and was not appointed or selected for clerical jobs in Grade-III. The determining factor is not the educational qualification i.e. whether he is matriculate or a graduate, rather the determining factor is the category of job for which he has been selected. In this case the petitioner has been selected and appointed as Category-1 Mazdoor, and has not been selected for clerical jobs Grade-III. When the petitioner has not been selected for a clerical job Grade-III his case will be governed by Clause (a) of the Implementation Instruction No.29 and not by Clause (b), even if the petitioner for the time being was allowed to perform some clerical job. His nature of appointment and selection of scale will be governed by his appointment letter and in this case it was Category-1 Mazdoor and not Grade-III. To get the scale of Grade-III, the initial appointment of the employee should have been in Grade-III, which is not the case in hand. Thus, the respondents have correctly placed the petitioner and have given him pay-scale of Category-1 and not of Grade-III as he was not appointed as a clerk. 9. I find no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present writ application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) KNR -4-