Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2016 DIGILAW 205 (SC)

Vivek Pathak v. Ram Krishan Kashyap

2016-02-04

C.NAGAPPAN, FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA

body2016
ORDER : The short question for consideration in this appeal, which arises out of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.13575/2006 is, as to whether the appellants who were granted promotion to the post of Technical Assistants Grade-I after they got stagnated in the post of Junior Lecturer Assistants, vis-a-vis, Respondent Nos.2 to 6, who were also extended the similar benefit having regard to their stagnation in the post of Store Keeper were entitled to count their seniority over and above the said Respondent Nos.2 to 6. Admittedly, Respondent Nos.2 to 6 entered service in the year 1997/1998. As there was no further avenue of promotion, Respondent No.7/University graciously came forward to consider the claim for promotion of the appellants as well as the Respondent Nos.4 to 6. Consequently, a Committee was constituted, to whom the issue was referred. The Committee considered the issue in respect of the appellants as well as Respondent Nos.2 to 6 and suggested that they could be considered for promotion to the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I. The proposal of the Committee was identical pertaining to the appellants, who were all holding the posts of Junior Lecturer Assistants and Respondent Nos.2 to 6, who were holding the posts of Store Keepers. 2. The Executive Council of Respondent No.7/University considered the recommendations of the Committee and agreed to the proposal. It is true that insofar as the Resolution pertaining to the grant of promotion to those holding the posts of Store Keepers, namely, Respondent Nos.2 to 6 was concerned, it was suggested that grant of promotion to Respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the posts of Technical Assistants Grade-I can be made after adjusting the eligible Junior Lecturer Assistants, namely, the appellants. 3. The proposals relating to the appellants as well as that of Respondent Nos.2 to 6 were approved by the Executive Council in their meeting held on 28.7.2005. While approving the proposals of the Committee in the case of Respondent Nos.2 to 6, it was further resolved that even after their promotion as Technical Assistant Grade-I, they will continue to discharge the duties of Store Keeper based on the Resolution of the Executive Council. Promotion orders were issued to the appellants on 29.7.2005 for the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I and to the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 on 1.8.2005. 4. Promotion orders were issued to the appellants on 29.7.2005 for the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I and to the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 on 1.8.2005. 4. It is relevant to note that in the feeder post of Junior Lecture Assistant, the appellants were drawing their pay in the pay scale of Rs.4,000 - Rs.6,000, while the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 were fitted in the pay scale of Rs.5000 - 7850. It is also relevant to note that in the promoted post of Technical Assistants Grade-I, they were all fitted in the pay scale of Rs.5500 - Rs.9000. One other relevant factor to be noted is that while the respondent Nos.2 to 6 were already in the pay scale of Rs.5,000 - Rs.7,850 and on promotion they were fitted in the next higher scale of Rs.5,500 - Rs.9,000, the appellants were shifted straightaway from the pay scale of Rs.4,000 - Rs.6,000 to Rs.5,500 - Rs.9,000. The said distinction as between the appellants and the respondents was brought to the notice of the University, apparently at the instance of the Audit Section which persuaded the University to take note of the said factor, which is reflected in the Minutes of Meeting of the Committee constituted by the Executive Council dated 30.3.2006. While noting the said difference in pay scales as between the appellants and the respondents, the Committee recommended that instead of shifting the appellants straightaway from the pay scale of Rs.4000 - Rs.6000 to Rs.5,500 - Rs.9,000 they can be fitted in the scale of Rs.5,000 - Rs.7,850, if sufficient number of posts in that scale were available in the University. 5. 5. There was also an audit requisition dated 18.5.2006 pointing out the above-said distinction that was prevailing after the promotion orders were issued to the appellants and the respondents which advised the University to get an undertaking from the appellants to the effect that the payment of their salary in the promoted post in a higher scale, namely, Rs.5,500 - Rs.9,000 would be subject to the decision of the State Government/University/ Court, with a further advice to provide scope for recovery from the G.P.F. On that basis, the local audit of Haryana, therefore, allowed the payment of the salary in a higher scale of Rs.5,500 - Rs.9,000 to the appellants in the promoted post, thereby ensuring that in the event of non-approval by the State Government or by the State Audit or by any Court of law, the excess amount paid to the appellants could be recovered from their Provident Fund Contribution. 6. Be that as it may, we are not concerned with the said developments, while at the same time, since it was brought to our notice, we simply make a note of the said development relating to the consequence that arose out of the promotions effected in favour of the appellants and the shortcomings in the matter of grant of higher scale of pay straightaway Rs.4,000 - 6000 to Rs.5,500 - 9000 and there being no scope for their drawing the scale of pay in between scale of pay or Rs.5,000 - 7850. 7. Now, we are only concerned with the question, whether the impugned order of the High Court in having held to the effect that the promotion of the appellants should take effect only after the promotion of Respondent Nos.2 to 6, by virtue of the fact that the said respondents were already in the higher scale of pay of Rs.5,000 - 7850, while the appellants were in the pay scale of Rs.4,000 - 6000. The said fact is not in dispute. That apart, it is also the admitted position that the appellants entered service only in the year 1998, while Respondent Nos.2 to 6 entered service in the year 1997/1998 (Respondent No.2 and 3 were appointed in the year 1997 and Respondent Nos.4 to 6 were appointed in the year 1998). The said fact is not in dispute. That apart, it is also the admitted position that the appellants entered service only in the year 1998, while Respondent Nos.2 to 6 entered service in the year 1997/1998 (Respondent No.2 and 3 were appointed in the year 1997 and Respondent Nos.4 to 6 were appointed in the year 1998). We also note a further fact that for the purpose of Junior Lecturer Assistants at the entry level, the qualification was stated to be a metric pass while for the post of Store Keeper it was holding of a Degree. 8. Having regard to such distinctive features as between the appellants and the respondent Nos.2 to 6, we do not find any fault in the conclusion of the Division Bench in having held that Respondent Nos.2 to 6 had a march over the appellants and consequently their promotions should be treated as having been made earlier to that of the appellants. 9. We, therefore, do not propose to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.