Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 562 (GAU)

Raimohan Majumder v. State of Tripura

2007-08-22

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2007
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Das, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. M.N. Indu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel representing the Respondents. 2. The grievance raised in this petition is in respect of crossing of Efficiency Bar (EB) at the 15th stage in the pay scale of Rs. 325-665/- with effect from 26.9.76. It is the case of the Petitioner that he has at his credit unblemished service career and consequently he was allowed to cross Efficiency Bar at different stages. However, at the 15th stage, he was not allowed to cross Efficiency Bar without assigning any reason. From the materials on record, it appears that the case of the Petitioner was espoused by the controlling authority. By letter dated 1.10.94, the Superintending Engineer, Kumarghat, requested for advice in the matter from the Chief Engineer, PWD. In the letter, it was indicated that no information was furnished by the competent authority as to whether the Petitioner had passed the departmental examination on Accounts. 3. The Respondents in their counter affidavit have justified their action in not allowing the Petitioner to cross the Efficiency Bar at 15th stage. According to them, since the Petitioner failed to clear the departmental examination, he was not allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar. According to them, clearing the departmental examination is the condition precedent for crossing the Efficiency Bar. 4. In the counter affidavit, the further stand of the Respondents is that the pay scale of the Petitioner has been subsequently revised in accordance with the ROP Rules, 1988 which came into effect from 1.1.86. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the Petitioner has not denied the specific plea of the Respondents that he was not allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar on account of his not clearing the departmental examination of Accounts. However, the Petitioner has referred to FR 25 in support of his case. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials on record. As against the stand of the Petitioner that his case was to be dealt with as per FR25, it is the stand of the Respondents that since the Petitioner did not clear the departmental examination on Accounts he could not be allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar. As against the stand of the Petitioner that his case was to be dealt with as per FR25, it is the stand of the Respondents that since the Petitioner did not clear the departmental examination on Accounts he could not be allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar. However, the Respondents have stated that the pay of the Petitioner has been re-fixed as per ROP Rules, 1988. 7. The letter dated 1.10.94 addressed to the Chief Engineer by the Superintendent Engineer on which the Petitioner has placed reliance itself speaks of requirement of clearing the departmental examination on Accounts. If the Petitioner did not clear the departmental examination, the Respondents were within their jurisdiction and competence to withhold the Efficiency Bar. 8. As per FR 25 also, crossing of Efficiency Bar is not automatic. The increment next above the bar shall not be given to a Government servant without specific sanction of the authority. As per the Government of India's instruction indicated under FR 25, certain procedure for consideration of cases for crossing Efficiency Bar is to be followed. Such Efficiency Bar can be allowed to be crossed as per the recommendation of the DPC. The DPC is within its competence and jurisdiction to take into account the particular incumbent who failed to clear the departmental examination. It is not known as to whether the Petitioner in the mean time has cleared the departmental examination. However, as per the affidavit filed by the Respondents, the Petitioner's pay scale was subsequently revised according to the ROP Rules, 1988 with effect from 1.1.86. 9. In view of the aforesaid position, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner by issuing a mandamus to allow the Petitioner to cross the Efficiency Bar at the 15th Stage with effect from 26.9.76. As regards the second prayer made in the writ petition for providing him the fixation benefits as per the revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.86, the same will depend on the crossing of Efficiency Bar at the 15th stage. Moreover, as per the affidavit filed by the Respondents, the Petitioner's pay has been re-fixed as per ROP Rules, 1988 with effect from 1.1.86. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition merits dismissal which I accordingly do. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. Petition dismissed