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










Union of India Vs. P.C. Misra [1993] INSC 333 (2 September 1993)

Agrawal, S.C. (J) Agrawal, S.C. (J) Anand, A.S. (J)

CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 39 JT 1993 (5) 114 1993 SCALE (3)636

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.C. AGRAWAL, J.- Special leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants in the appeals and the respondent in person in appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14261-62 of 1992 and the learned counsel for the respondent in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14402 of 1992.

3. These appeals are directed against the orders dated March 4, 1992 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'. Since they raise common questions for consideration they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar Islands Civil Service, hereinafter referred to as 'the Service', is governed by the Delhi and Andaman & Nicobar Islands Civil Service Rules, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. Initially the Service consisted of two grades, viz., Grade 1 (Selection Grade) and Grade II. By memorandum dated November 26, 1987, the Government of India decided that with effect from January 1, 1986, the pay structure of the Service would be as under:

(i) Entry Grade Rs 2000-3500 Existing (ii) Selection Grade Rs 3000-4500 Existing (After 8 years) (20% of APS) (iii) Junior Administrative Grade Rs 3700-5000 New scale (After 12 years) introduced [With at least 4 years in Selection Grade] (20% of APS - Subject to identification of posts)

5. In the said memorandum, it was stated that necessary amendments in the Rules are being carried out. The said amendments were introduced by Delhi and Andaman & Nicobar Islands Civil Service (Amendment) Rules, 1988, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Amendment', notified vide Notification dated November 22, 1988. Some of the amendments introduced in the Rules by the 1988 Amendment were :

(1) Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 was substituted by the following provision:

"(2) The Service shall have the following three grades, namely

(i) Junior Administrative Grade;

(ii) Grade 1 (Selection Grade); and

(iii) Grade II."

(2) Rule 18 was substituted by the following provision "18. All appointments to the Service shall be made to the Junior Administrative Grade, Grade 1 or Grade 11 of the service and not against any specific posts included in the service." 41 (3) Rule 30 was substituted as under :

"30. The scales of pay attached to the service shall be as follows:

(i) Junior Administrative Grade Rs 3700-125-4700-150-5000;

(ii) Grade 1 (Selection Grade) Rs 3000-100-3500-125-4500;

(iii) Grade II Rs 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500."

(4) In Rule 31 relating to appointments to Junior Administrative Grade and to Selection Grade sub-rules (2) and (3) were introduced as under :

"(2) An officer with a minimum of five years of regular service in Grade 1 shall be eligible for being considered for promotion to Junior Administrative Grade.

NOTE: However, for vacancies occurring up to December 31, 1991, an officer with at least four years regular service in Grade 1 shall also be eligible for being considered for appointment to Junior Administrative Grade provided he has got a minimum 12 years of combined regular service in Grade 1 and Grade II.

Provided that any service rendered in Grade 11 which was taken into account for promotion to Grade 1 by a duly constituted DPC will be deemed to be regular service for the purpose of reckoning qualifying years of service:

Provided further that service rendered in an equivalent post in a State Civil Service or in Grade II of the Delhi and Himachal Pradesh Civil Service or Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Andaman & Nicobar Islands Civil Service shall count towards the 12 years period :

Provided further that where a Junior person is considered for such appointment, all persons senior to him shall also be considered for promotion to Junior Administrative Grade provided they have put in at least four years regular service in Grade 1.

(3) The crucial date for determining the eligibility of officers for promotion to Junior Administrative Grade shall be 31st December of the year in which the vacancy has occurred.

NOTE: For promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade year-wise panel will be prepared from the year 1986, i.e., w.e.f the year in which the Junior Administrative Grade has been created and the crucial date will be 31st December of the year to which the panel pertains."

6. Schedule I to the Rules was revised and under Delhi Administration 29 posts were specified as falling in the Junior Administrative Grade. By notification dated April 7, 1989, the Rules were further amended by Delhi and Andaman & Nicobar Civil Service (Amendment) Rules, 1989 and Schedule I was substituted and as a result the number of posts specified as falling in the Junior Administrative Grade was raised to 40.

7. P.C. Misra, the respondent in appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 1426162 of 1992, joined the Service in 1974. He was promoted to Selection Grade of the Service with effect from July 16, 1984. He was appointed to the post of Joint Director (Agriculture and Marketing), with effect from February 4, 1988. The said post is specified as falling in the Junior Administrative Grade in Schedule I 42 to the Rules as substituted by the 1988 Amendment. He was considered for appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade but he was not selected and his juniors were appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade with effect from July 17, 1989. Feeling aggrieved by his non-selection for the Junior Administrative Grade, he filed O.A. No. 1006 of 1989 and O.A. No. 40 of 1989 before the Tribunal. The said applications have been allowed by the Tribunal by order dated March 4, 1992. The Tribunal has held that the said respondent should be deemed to have been regularly appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade with effect from January 1, 1986.

8. M.N. Mathur, the respondent in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14402 of 1992, joined the Service in 1970. He was promoted to Selection Grade by order dated November 12, 1984 with effect from October 3, 1983. In November 1986 he was appointed to the post of Joint Director (Education) and in July 1987 he was posted as Assistant Commissioner (Sales Tax) and in September 1988 as Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax). All the three posts, viz., Joint Director (Education), Assistant Commissioner (Sales Tax) and Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax) are specified as falling in the Junior Administrative Grade in Schedule I to the Rules as substituted by 1988 Amendment. He was considered for appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade but was not selected and two of his juniors were appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade on May 17, 1989. He filed O.A. No. 1202 of 1989 before the Tribunal which was allowed by order dated March 4, 1992. The Tribunal has directed that he should be deemed to have been regularly appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade with effect from January 1, 1986.

9. In holding that the respondents should be deemed to have been regularly appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade with effect from January 1, 1986, the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the Selection Grade posts specified in the Schedule I to the Rules as falling in the Junior Administrative Grade have been upgraded to the Junior Administrative Grade and respondents, who were holding the posts which are specified as falling in the Junior Administrative Grade in Schedule I as revised by the 1988 Amendment, must be deemed to have been appointed to the upgraded posts without requiring any fresh process of selection to be undergone by them. The Tribunal has also held that the 1988 Amendment providing for promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade from Grade 1 (Selection Grade) being prospective could only govern the vacancies arising after the coming into force of the 1988 Amendment and further that the vested rights and legitimate expectations of the respondents could not be taken away by retrospective amendment of the Rules and by providing for fresh selection to the upgraded posts in the Junior Administrative Grade by adopting new criteria.

10. The appellants have not challenged the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the 1988 Amendment has brought about upgradation of the Selection Grade posts referred to in Schedule I as falling in the Junior Administrative Grade.

We will, therefore, proceed on the assumption that the posts specified as falling in the Junior Administrative Grade in Schedule I to the Rules, as amended by the 1988 Amendment, have been upgraded from Selection Grade to Junior Administrative Grade. The said upgradation, according to the respondents and as found by the Tribunal, was with effect from January 1, 1986. In order that respondents could be held to be entitled to be appointed to the upgraded post in 43 the Junior Administrative Grade, it was necessary that (i) they should have been holding that post on the date of upgradation, i.e., January 1, 1986; and (ii) they were eligible for appointment to the said post on January 1, 1986, the day of upgradation. We find that both these conditions are not satisfied by the respondents. On January 1, 1986, both of them were not holding a post specified as falling in the Junior Administrative Grade in Schedule 1 to the Rules, as amended by the 1988 Amendment. They came to hold such a post after January 1, 1986. P.C. Misra came to hold such a post i.e. Joint Director (Agriculture and Marketing) on February 4, 1988 while M.N. Mathur came to hold such post i.e. Joint Director (Education) in November 1986.

11. As regards eligibility for appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade it may be stated that the Memorandum dated November 26, 1987 whereby the Junior Administrative Grade was introduced with effect from January 1, 1986, prescribed that in order that a person could be appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade he should have 12 years' service with at least four years in Selection Grade.

The same requirement is prescribed in the Note appended below sub-rule (2) of Rule 31, inserted by the 1988 Amendment, which provides that for vacancies occurring up to December 31, 1991, an officer with at least four years' regular service in Grade 1 shall also be eligible for being considered for appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade provided he has got a minimum 12 years of combined regular service in Grade 1 and Grade 11. This will show that both under memorandum dated November 26, 1987 and the Rules as amended by the 1988 Amendment, in order to be eligible for appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade it was necessary for an officer to have 12 years' service and at least four years' service in Grade 1. Reference, in this context, may also be made to the Note appended below subrule (3) of Rule 31 inserted by the 1988 Amendment. In sub-rule (3) it is provided that the crucial date for determining the eligibility of officers for promotion to Junior Administrative Grade shall be 31st December of the year in which the vacancy has occurred. In the Note appended below sub-rule (3), it is provided that for promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade year wise panel will be prepared from the year 1986, i.e., with effect from the year in which the Junior Administrative Grade has been created and the crucial date will be 31st December of the year to which the panel pertains. The memorandum dated November 26, 1987 has to be read along with sub-rule (3) of Rule 31 and if thus read it would cover cases of officers who were eligible on January 1, 1986, the date of introduction of the Junior Administrative Grade. In other words officers who fulfilled the conditions of eligibility contained in the said memorandum on December 31, 1985 were to be appointed on the Junior Administrative Grade with effect from January 1, 1986 on the basis of the said memorandum and the officers who acquired the eligibility for such appointment after December 31, 1985 would be governed by the Rules in view of the note appended below subrule (3) of Rule 31 and they could be appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade in accordance with the provisions of Rule 31. Neither of the respondents fulfilled the criterion for eligibility mentioned in the memorandum because both of them did not have four years' service in Selection Grade on January 1, 1986. They came to satisfy the said requirement of eligibility only after January 1, 1986.

Since they could not satisfy the conditions of eligibility up to January 1, 1986, they could not be deemed to have been regularly appointed to the Junior 44 Administrative Grade with effect from January 1, 1986, the date when the Junior Administrative Grade was introduced and the Selection Grade post specified as falling in the Junior Administrative Grade in Schedule 1 are said to have been upgraded to the Junior Administrative Grade. They could be appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade only by way of promotion in accordance with the Rules, as amended by the 1988 Amendment. Their cases were duly considered for such promotion but they were not found suitable for appointment and were not selected. The respondents have not been able to show any infirmity in the said selection. Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 31 appointment of members of the Service to the Junior Administrative Grade is required to be made by promotion on selection basis. Since the respondents were not found suitable for appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade they cannot claim appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade on the basis that officers junior to them have been appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade.

12. We are unable to appreciate the view of the Tribunal that the 1988 Amendment could only govern vacancies arising after the coming into force of the 1988 Amendment and that the vested rights and legitimate expectations could not be taken away by retrospective amendment of the Rules. Since the Junior Administrative Grade was introduced for the first time with effect from January 1, 1986 the rule-making authority was competent to make provision for appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade after it was introduced.

Amendments introduced in Rule 31 by the 1988 Amendment make provision for such appointments and we do not find any legal infirmity in the said provision.

13. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the orders dated March 4, 1992 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 1006 of 1989, 40 of 1989 and 1202 of 1989 are set aside and the said applications are dismissed. No orders as to 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