Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1225 (MP)

Daulatmal Rajpal v. M. P. Electricity Board

2005-12-01

RAJENDRA MENON

body2005
JUDGMENT Petitioner at the relevant time was holding the post of Executive Engineer under the Superintending Engineer (STRE), M.P. Electricity Board, Gwalior. When he was denied the higher pay scale in accordance with the policies and circulars of the Board as contained in Annexure P-4 dated 19.7.1990. Being aggrieved by the action of Board in not granting him higher pay scale on the post of Sub-Engineer, petitioner has filed this petition. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in 1994. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer in 1979 and, thereafter, Executive Engineer in the year 1994 in which post he was working when the petition was filed. According to the petitioner, as per the circular Annexure P-4, petitioner became entitled to get the benefit of next higher pay scale on the post of Executive Engineer, after completing 9 years service. Accordingly, his case was to be considered but benefit of higher pay scale is denied to the petitioner on the basis of certain adverse CR reported in the CR for the years 1993-1994. Vide communication dated 29.12.1994 (Annexure P-4) certain adverse entries in CR of the petitioner for the period from 9.9.1993 to 5.3.1994 was communicated. It is the case of the petitioner that prior to this and subsequent to that petitioner has received very good CR when an adverse CR was communicated only because of mala fide intention of respondent No.5 inter alia contending that even if for a particular period, there was some adverse report in the CR of that petitioner. The circular Annexure P-4 provides for promotion to the next higher post in an employee has stagnated in a particular post for 9, 18 and 25 years respectively, petitioner seeks grant of relief in the matter. Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel representing the Board has refuted the aforesaid and it is stated by him by referring to the circular in question Annexure P-4 that the purpose of aforesaid circular is to grant the benefit of higher pay scale to employee who is unable to be promoted after 9, 18 and 25 years of service in a Board for want of vacancies. Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel submits that even in such matters for grant of next higher pay scale, the principles laid down for promotion are applicable and if an employee is found eligible for promotion the same criteria would apply and accordingly, in the case of petitioner matter was referred to the appropriate committee and the appropriate committee after scrutinizing of the service records, found certain adverse entries in the CR of the petitioner during 1993-1'994 and 1994-1995 and accordingly, in view of the aforesaid adverse entries in the CR he was not recommended for grant of higher pay scale. Accordingly, Shri Jain submits that no case is made out for interference in themat1er. Alongwith the return respondents have filed documents Annexures R-1 to R-3 so also the circulars of show cause notice and list issued to the petitioners to demonstrate the reason for not granting him promotion. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, it is seen from the records that petitioner's case for grant of next higher pay scale was considered by the appropriate screening Committee and the Committee has not recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion. Shri R.A. Roman, learned Senior Advocate had argued that for granting to next higher scale, the criteria as laid down for consideration of the case for promotion of an employee to the next higher pay scale is not applicable. It is emphasised by Shri Roman that grant of next pay is automatic and for this the only requirement is that the employee should have been stagnated in a post without any promotion for 9, 18 and 25 years as the case may be. Accordingly, the question is as to whether the aforesaid contention of Shri R.A. Roman, learned senior counsel is correct or not. The aforesaid question has already been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1485 of 1993 M.P Electricity Board v. Vidhya Bhushan Saxena vide order dated 13.12.1992. In the aforesaid case, similar provisions as contained in circular Annexure P-4 pertaining to grant of higher pay scale was considered by the Supreme Court and it has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that even for the purpose of grant of next higher pay scale, Board can follow the criteria prescribed for promoting a person to the next higher post in accordance with the rules. In the case of Vidhya Bhushan Saxena, a circular dated 6.5.1982 issued in the matter of higher pay scale was considered and it has been observed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case as under. Since there were not many opportunities for promotion and with a view to obviate stagnation, the promotion and with a view to obviate stagnation, the Board issued on 6.5.1982 an Order which reads as under: "An officer, who has completed 9/10 years of service in the same grade in a particular pay scale as indicated in para 4 of this order and has not got promotion for no fault of his own i.e. for want of a clear vacancy, will be eligible for exercising option to the next higher scale from the date following the date on which he completes 9/10 years service in the same grade and his pay shall be fixed in the next scale in accordance with the rules governing promotion from one grade to another grade, under the normal fixation rules". This up-gradation was, however, subject to several conditions mentioned in para 3 of the said order. Condition No. (ii) is relevant for four purpose. It reads: "(ii) He is otherwise fit for promotion on the basis of overall performance as per normal rules of the Board " The words in para 2 "and has not got promotion for no fault of his own" read with condition No. (ii) clearly disclose that an officer is entitled to opt for and get the higher pay scale in the same grade provided he is fit and eligible for promotion but could not be promoted because there was no vacancy in the promotion category." In the present case, similar provisions are contained in the circular Annexure P-4 dated 19.7.1990. A complete reading of this circular also indicate that it provides for grant of two options to be exercised by the employee for getting higher pay scale. The manner of exercising option are indicated and it is also indicated that the officer should be otherwise fit for promotion on the basis of overall performance as per the criteria laid down by the Board from time to time. The manner of exercising option are indicated and it is also indicated that the officer should be otherwise fit for promotion on the basis of overall performance as per the criteria laid down by the Board from time to time. The same criteria and principle as was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Vidhya Bhushan is still continue in the Board and according to Shri Jain, the subsequent circulars issued by the Boards have only clarified the principle which was applicable in the original circular dated 6.5.1982. Keeping in view the aforesaid and the law laid down in the case of Vidhya Bhushan (supra), the contention advanced by Shri R.A. Roman, learned senior counsel, cannot be accepted. Once it is held that the criteria as applicable for promotion are applicable, even in such cases for considering the claim of an employee for' grant of higher pay scale, this Court cannot interfere in the matter, once it is found that after due consideration claim of the petitioner for higher pay scale are not recommended by the aforesaid screening committee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Board having considering the case of the petitioner in accordance with rules and criteria laid down, I find no infirmity in the matter warranting interference. Petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.