AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img










B.Rama Rao Vs. Govt. of A.P [1993] INSC 397 (1 October 1993)

RAMASWAMY, K. RAMASWAMY, K. SINGH N.P. (J) CITATION: 1995 SCC Supl. (1) 153

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

ORDER 1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

H-M/1 3744/SLA 3. The appellant is claiming his scale of pay as Asstt.

Lecturer at Rs 7001600 with effect from April 1, 1976, the date on which he was granted the scale of pay by the Principal. He filed Review Misc. Petition No. 1665 of 1985 in the Administrative Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated October 30, 1985. His OA was also dismissed. His sole contention is that G.O.Ms.

No. 1072 dated November 26, 1976 made him eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Lecturer on his having qualification of M.A. Second Class with over 50% marks and as he had improved his qualification, the Principal had correctly fixed his scale of pay from April 1, 1976. It is wholly misconceived. In G.O.Ms. No. 719-Education dated July 3, 1978 it was stated that the condition of 5 years prescribed earlier for application of revised pay scale of Rs 700-1600 to the Lecturers (Junior Scale) namely, Assistant Lecturers working in affiliated colleges was reduced to three years. Admittedly, he was regularised as an Assistant Lecturer with effect from December 11, 1975.

By application of these guidelines he became eligible on completion of three years as Assistant Lecturer. Therefore, his scale of pay as Assistant Lecturer was to be fixed with effect from December 1, 1978.

4. The contention of Shri Kanta Rao, learned counsel for appellant, is that the appellant had put in 8 years of service as a tutor and his previous service should be counted for the purpose of fixation of scale of pay as Assistant Lecturer. It is also devoid of substance. It is not a case that the instructions would give such a right.

His reliance on an order passed by the Administrative Tribunal in C. Anjaneyulu v. Principal, Govt. College, Khamman1 is of little assistance. There are no guidelines or instructions or rules (statutory) issued by the Government that the previous service rendered as a tutor would be counted to his service as Assistant Lecturer. What all it postulates is that those tutors who did not get into the post as Assistant Lecturers would remain as tutors, but + Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4363 of 1986 and SLP... of 1993 (CC 17368) 1 R.P. No. 85 of 1979, decided on July 30, 1983 155 no further recruitment as tutor be made. For eligibility to get revised scale of pay similar to the Assistant Lecturer, the period of service was suitably reduced. That does not mean that previous service as a tutor was directed to be counted for the service as Assistant Lecturer. The appellant is not, therefore, entitled to the fixation of the scale of pay earlier to December 1, 1978. No doubt the Tribunal had interpreted the rules wrongly and given the benefit to the petitioner therein. That would not be a ground to extend the same principle to the appellant. His contention that he is invidiously discriminated which offends Article 14, is devoid of substance. Any wrong order or a negative benefit given to an employee or non-action by the employer to remedy the same illegality would not be a ground to extend the illegal benefit to the person similarly situated. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the appeals. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys