Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1968 DIGILAW 24 (ALL)

P. C. Saxena v. State Govt. of U. P

1968-01-11

SATISH CHANDRA

body1968
ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 6th September, 1967, passed by the State Government, changing his designation and reducing bis emoluments. In January, 1947, the petitioner was appointed as Head Assistant in the office of the Sugar Commissioner, U- P. Kanpur, in the scale of Rs. 200-250. The scale was, with effect from April 1, 1947, revised and increased to Rs. 300-400. By an order dated August 7, 1952, passed by the State Government, the office of Sugar Commissioner was combined with that of the Cane Commissioner. As a result, several posts were abolished But the post of Head Assistant held by the petitioner continued. It was directed in the order dated 7th August, 1952, that the post of Head Assistant held by the petitioner would remain attached to the Cane Commissioner. The Cane Commissioner bad already a Head Assistant attached to him. To avoid confusion created on account of there having become two posts designated as Head Assistants, the State Government by an order dated 15th November, i952, charged the designation of the petitioner from Head Assistant to Personal Assistant to the Sugar Commissioner. It was clarified in the order dated 15th November, 1952, that the change in the designation was made purely as a measure of administrative convenience and that would not confer any higher status on the incumbent. 2 Subsequently, the Government issued an order dated May 9, 1955, sanctioning a temporary post of personal Assistant to the Sugar Commissioner in the scale of Rs. 200.400. By another order dated 28th April, 1958, this temporary post of personal Assistant was made permanent with effect from April 1, 1956, and it was directed that the incumbent of that post would draw dearne's allowance in accordance with Government orders in force from time to time. On 7th January, 1957, the Sugar Commissioner confirmed the petitioner on the post of Personal Assistant with effect from 1st April, 1956, subject to his being found medically fit. The petitioner was then medically examined and on his being declared medically fit, the Sugar Commissioner confirmed th8 petitioner on the post of the personal Assistant with effect from April 1, 1956. As a result, the petitioner now became the holder of a permanent post of Personal Assistant in a substantive and confirmed capacity. 3. In 1964, the Government appointed a Pay Rationalisation Committee. As a result, the petitioner now became the holder of a permanent post of Personal Assistant in a substantive and confirmed capacity. 3. In 1964, the Government appointed a Pay Rationalisation Committee. In its report, the Committee recommended that the scale of pay of the Personal Assistant to Sugar Com. missioner be increased to Rs. 400-550. The Government by a resolution dated 29th July, 1985, accepted this report of the Pay Rationalisation Committee, and directed that separate orders implementing the new scales of pay would be issued in due course. 4. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Pay Rationalisation Committee, the Petitioner opted for the new scale oi Rs. 400.450; but, for some reason, the Government did not issue any separate order for implementation of the new pay scale in respect of the port of Personal Assistant to the Sugar Commissioner. On 26th October, 1966, the Sugar Commissioner invited the attention of the Stats Government to this omission and requested for the issue of formal orders in that regard. But, the result wa3 the impugned order dated 6th September, 1967. This order stated that in modification of the Notification dated 26th April, 1956 read with the Notification dated 15th November, 1952, the designation of the post of Personal Assistant to the Sugar Commissioner was revised to the original designation of Head Assistant with effect from April 1, 1965. It was further stated therein that the scale of pay of the post of the Head Assistant was change from Rs. 300-400 to Rs. 250.325/-. It is to be noticed that in respect of this poet of Head Assistant, the Pay Rationalisation Committee had not made any recommendation in its report, nor had the committee even noticed this post. By the impugned order dated 6th September, 1967, the Government seems to have revived this post of Head Assistant and revised its pay.scale, by reducing the Bame. 5. The petitioner claims that he was holding substantively a permanent poet in the scale of Rs. 3C0-400. The impugned order degrades him to a post carrying a scale of Es. 250-325/-. The designation of the post has also been changed, with the result that the petitioner was deprived of the benefits of the recommendations of the Pay Rationalisation Committee. The benefits, to which the petitioner was entitled, have been taken away from him. 3C0-400. The impugned order degrades him to a post carrying a scale of Es. 250-325/-. The designation of the post has also been changed, with the result that the petitioner was deprived of the benefits of the recommendations of the Pay Rationalisation Committee. The benefits, to which the petitioner was entitled, have been taken away from him. The action of the Government amounts to reduction in rank within the meaning of that term in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The express provision of that Article having been violated the impugned order was void and had no legal effect. 6. For the State Government, it was urged that the petitioners original post wa3 that of the Head Assistant. In 1952 for administrative convenience and to avoid confusion the designation of the petitioners post was changed from Head Assistant to Personal Assistant. During all this period, the petitioner really continued to hold his original post. The post of Head Assistant originally held by the petitioner, was not abolished. It was continued to be provided in the annual budgets of the State Government. The Government has now put the petitioner to his original post with the original designation. Such a change-over does not take away from the petitioner any benefits or privileges attaching the post held by him, and it does not amount to reduction in rank. 7. It is true that in 1952 there was only a change in the petitioners designation from Head Assistant to Personal Assistant. That was expressly done by way of administrative convenience and no change of petitioners status was involve. But, in 1955 a temporary post of Personal Assistant was created.' In 1956, that post was made permanent with effect from 1st April, 1956. The Notification dated 26th April 1956, whereby the post of Personal Assistant was made permanent, on which the petitioner was appointed and con- firmed has been partially modified by the impugned order date September 6, 1967. That modification is said to be a change of designation from Personal Assistant to Head Assistant. Assuming that the Government had the requisite authority to do this, it would not entitle the Government to reduce the incumbent in rank or pay in the guise of changing the designation of the post. It is apparent that the post of Personal Assistant created permanently by Notification of 26th April 1956, has not been abolished. Assuming that the Government had the requisite authority to do this, it would not entitle the Government to reduce the incumbent in rank or pay in the guise of changing the designation of the post. It is apparent that the post of Personal Assistant created permanently by Notification of 26th April 1956, has not been abolished. Mere change in the designation of a permanent post would not entitle the Government to revise its pay scale to the detriment of the incumbent of that poet who was a confirmed hand working on that post. That would amount to reduction in rank which could not be done without complying with the requirements of Article 311.(2). Mere act of change of designation of a post would not ipso facto entitle the Government also to reduce the pay scale of that post. 8. Further, the Pay Rationalisation Committee had recommended enhanced pay scale for the post of Personal Assistant. The petitioner had opted for it. The State Government had accepted the recommendations of the Committee. It was under the circumstances incumbent upon the Government to give to the petitioner the higher scale of pay, as recommended by the Committee. The petitioner can very well say that he was entitled to the enhanced scale of pay. On the contrary the petitioners scale of pay has been reduced below the preexisting one. It is clear that the petitioners existing benefits have been taken away. 9. When the Pay Rationalisation Committee made its report and the same was accept by the Government, the petitioner was holding the post of Personal Assistant in a substantive and confirmed capacity. He had opted for the new scale of pay. The Government was obliged to give him the new enhanced scale of pay. If subsequently the Government changed the designation of the post held by him, that would not in my opinion disentitle the petitioner from claiming the new scale of pay. The Government was not within its rights in refusing to give him the new pay scale. The petitioner had a right to the post as well as to the benefits and emoluments attaching to it. He could not be deprived of that right without compliance with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. That was not done. 10. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order date 6th September 1967, is Bet aside. The petitioner had a right to the post as well as to the benefits and emoluments attaching to it. He could not be deprived of that right without compliance with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. That was not done. 10. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order date 6th September 1967, is Bet aside. The respondent is directed to afford the petitioner the benefits new pay Scale of Es. 400-550. The petitioner would be entitled to hie costs.