Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4428 (MAD)

R. Jayarajan v. Principal District Judge

2014-11-26

K.K.SASIDHARAN, SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2014
Judgment 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks one bonus increment under G.O.No.562, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 28.09.1998, which provides that an employee stagnating in a post beyond 30 years, i.e., employees stagnating in Special Grade beyond 10 years be granted with one bonus increment as an incentive. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is stated to have joined as Peon in the District Munsif Court, Vellore on 01.12.1975 and he was regularised with effect from 01.08.1976. Thereafter, he was regularised as Junior Bailiff and was granted Selection Grade on the post of Junior Bailiff on 01.08.1986. He was promoted temporarily to the post of Senior Bailiff on 01.10.1990 and subsequently, reverted back to the substantive post of Junior Bailiff on 23.11.1995. The petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. A request of the petitioner for the said benefit was rejected by the office of the Accountant General/second respondent observing as under : "The official was promoted as Senior Bailiff on 1.10.1990 and reverted as Junior Bailiff on 23.11.1995. Bonus increment can be given only if an official holds the same post continuously without promotion for 30 years. Hence Bonus increment is not eligible to the official." 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition, seeking a direction to the authorities to grant him one bonus increment as permissible under G.O.Ms.No.562, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 28.09.1998, as aforstated. 5. The case of the learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that the observation of the second respondent that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Bailiff on 01.10.1990 and thereafter, he was reverted to the post of Junior Bailiff on 23.11.1995 and as such, there was no stagnation in the post of Junior Bailiff for a period of 30 years as required under the G.O, is erroneous. The petitioner was promoted temporarily and not on substantive basis and as such, by subsequent order dated 23.11.1995, he was posted back in the post of Junior Bailiff, to which he belongs. 6. It is further contended that since the petitioner was not promoted substantively to the senior post, it cannot be held that the stagnation period was interrupted by promotion. The promotion was temporary against the vacancy to look after the work of the Senior Bailiff and there was no substantive promotion. 6. It is further contended that since the petitioner was not promoted substantively to the senior post, it cannot be held that the stagnation period was interrupted by promotion. The promotion was temporary against the vacancy to look after the work of the Senior Bailiff and there was no substantive promotion. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to one bonus increment on the ground of stagnation in the post of Junior Bailiff, in which post he retired ultimately. 7. On the other hand, Mr. V. Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent supports the observation made in the impugned order, contending that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Senior Bailiff from 01.10.1990 to 23.11.1995, even if it is temporary, interrupts the 30 years stagnation period and as such, he was not entitled to the said benefit. The first respondent feebly supports the case of the second respondent. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended to the writ petition. 9. On a careful examination, it is found that the temporary promotion order dated 20.09.1990 clearly states that the promotion was temporary to act as Amin, in the District Munsif Court, Polur in the existing vacancy. Thereafter, it was not brought to the notice of this Court as to whether the petitioner was confirmed in the post of Amin, i.e., Senior Bailiff. By the subsequent orders dated 21.11.1995, he was posted back by using the word "reverted" to act as Process Server, i.e., Junior Bailiff. On a perusal of both the orders, it is deducible that the petitioner was posted in the post of Amin as Senior Bailiff temporarily to act and discharge the function of higher post and thereafter, without any reason, he was posted back in the substantive post of Junior Bailiff as Process Server. No document has been produced and also, it is not the case of either party that the petitioner's promotion was substantive and he was reverted back on account of some punishment. It is further clear by the subsequent developments that while acting as Junior Bailiff in Selection Grade, he was given Special Grade in the post of Junior Bailiff on 19.04.2002 and thereafter, he continued as Junior Bailiff till his retirement on 31.05.2010. It is further clear by the subsequent developments that while acting as Junior Bailiff in Selection Grade, he was given Special Grade in the post of Junior Bailiff on 19.04.2002 and thereafter, he continued as Junior Bailiff till his retirement on 31.05.2010. Thus, it cannot be held that his stagnation in the post of Junior Bailiff was interrupted by his substantive promotion to the higher post, as pleaded by the second respondent. 10. The relevant portion of the Government Order, viz., G.O. Ms.No.562, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 28.09.1998, under which the petitioner is seeking the benefit reads as under: "2. The Government after careful examination of the recommendations of the One Man Commission has decided to accept it. Accordingly, Government directs that employers stagnating in a post beyond 30 years i.e. employees stagnating in the Special Grade beyond 10 years be granted with one bonus increment as an incentive. 3. These orders shall take effect from 1st September 1998." 11. It appears that grant of one bonus increment as an incentive was accepted on the basis of One Man Commission constituted by the Government to give benefits to those employees who stagnate in one post for more than 30 years, i.e., in Special Grade for more than 10 years. This is a beneficial Government Order, which has to be constructed liberally. The petitioner is, accordingly, entitled to the benefit of this Government Order, keeping in view the fact that all the events of working are clear and unambiguous. The facts on his stagnation in the post for 30 years are well established. 12. As a sequel, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of one bonus increment under G.O.No.562, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 28.09.1998, to the petitioner. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.