Y. Ramanjaneyulu Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors [1985] INSC 74 (29 March 1985)
DESAI, D.A. DESAI, D.A. MISRA, R.B. (J)
CITATION: 1985 AIR 928 1985 SCR (3) 569 1985
SCC (2) 723 1985 SCALE (1)655
ACT:
Civil Service-Principle of Reservation of
appointments extended to all departments by an Order-No appropriate and timely
action taken on It by the Department-Unexplained long delay on the part of the
appellant in moving for effective remedy-Effect of,
HEADNOTE:
G.O.Ms.No. 559 dated May 4. 1961 issued by
the respondent-State provides that the principle of reservation of appointments
should be extended to all cadres of posts including posts involving promotions
in all departments including the Departments of Secretariat to which it did not
apply till then.
The appellant filed a Representation Petition
before the Tribunal as late as 1977 contending that if appropriate action would
have been taken at the time it was due as per G.O.Ms.No. 559, he would have
been eligible for promotion as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies in
1965 and by denying him the said promotion in violation of the aforesaid Govt.
Order; his future promotion to the post of Joint Registrar has been adversely
affected. The Tribunal dismissed the petition holding that tho special rules
for the Cooperative service did not contain any specific provision for the
application of rule of reservation and, therefore. the appellant was not
entitled to claim the benefit of the rule of reservation for promotion to the
rank of Deputy Registrar between 1965 and 1972 as claimed by him.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
Condoning the delay in filing the special
leave petition and disposing of the appeal, the Court ^
HELD: (1) On a proper interpretation of the
relevant Government Order, the appellant was entitled to promotion as Deputy
Registrar in the year 1965 which was postponed upto October 14, 1983 when he
was promoted as Deputy Register.
Though the appellant made number of
representation but he moved for an effective relief as late as 1977. Moreover,
This is not the lone case and if the Court grants him the Relief as claimed by
him. though he has 570 sought relief after a very long unexplained delay, it
would create chaos in the service and many promotions and reversions will have
to be effected. The Court is, therefore not inclined to disturb the existing
promotions and postings by holding that the appellant was entitled to promotion
way back in 1965. In this backgaround, be is entitled to some monetary
compensation.
[572G-H; 573A] (2) If the appellant is given
the benefit of deemed promotion from 1965 the State cannot deny identical
benefit to persons similarly situated and similarly circumstanced.
And they never questioned the alleged
impropriety of not giving them the benefit of the Government Order in respect
of reservations in promotion posts. All these are relevant considerations and
therefore the amount of backwages is fixed at Rs. 40,000 payable in one lump
sum. While computing the amount, the Court has kept in view the period during
which , the appellant would be entitled to relief.
Therefore, The amount of Rs. 40,000 awarded
as compensation in the form of backwages is to be spread over for the period
1965 to 1982. Since the amount is payable in one lump sum, presumably the
Government may resort to s. 192 of the Income Tax Act, but let it be made
distinctly clear that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of sec. 89 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 21A of the Income Tax Rules and is entitled
to relief of spread over. The pay of the appellant shall also be fixed at Rs.
1600 i.e. the maximum of the scale of Deputy Registrar effective from January
1, 1984. [573E-H; 574B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 1384 of 1935 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.83 of the
Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in Representation Petition No. 1172 of
1977.
A. Subba Rao for the Appellant.
P. Ram Reddy, R.V.S.N. Chari and Sudesh Menon
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DESAI, J. Special leave granted.
Delay in filing the special leave petition
condoned.
We heard mr.A Subba Rao, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Ram Reddy, learned senior. counsel for the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
The appellant claims that if appropriate
action would have been taken at the time it was due, as per the Ors. No. 559
571 dated May 4, 1961 which provides that the principle of reservation should
be extended to all cadres of posts including posts involving promotions in all
departments including the Departments of Secretariat to which it did not apply
till then, the appellant would have been eligible for promotion as Deputy
Registrar of Co-operative Societies in 1965. He also claims that by denying him
the promotion in violation of the afore-mentioned Govt. Order, his furture
promotion to the post of Joint Registrar has been adversely affected because in
that event he would have long since been appointed as Joint Registrar. The
appellant sought relief by filing Representation Petition No. 1172 of 1977 in
the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad The Tribunal held that
the special rules for the Co-operative service did not contain any specific
provision for the application of rule of reservation and, therefore, in
accordance with the Government Memo dated 27.3.1963, the appellant was not
entitled to claim the benefit of the rule of reservation for promotion to the
rank of Deputy Registrar between 1965 and 1972 as claimed by him.' Alternative
submission of the appellant that the action of the Government in giving the
benefit of the rule of reservation to the category of Section Officers in the
Secretariat in Andhra Pradesh General Service for appointment to the rank of
Deputy Registrar while omitting other feeder categories from which appointments
by transfers were made to the post of Deputy Registrar, was discriminatory and
hence violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, was rejected observing
that the promotion from the post of Sub-Registrar of Co-operative Societies to
the post of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies was in direct line of
promotion and therefore, this category has been excluded from the table annexed
to G.O.Ms No. 758 dated October 30,1976.
Accordingly, the representation petition was
rejected. Hence this appeal by special leave.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing, Mr.
Ram Reddy frankly stated that if the benefit of the rule of reservation as set
out in the G.O.Ms. 559 of May 4, 1961 was available to the appellant, he would
become eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar way back in 1965
or latest in 1972. He also frankly conceded that if now the appellant is given
promotion out of turn when he did not take effective remedial measures till
1977, when he filed the representation petition, there would be extensive
disturbance in various categories of posts because once the appellant is given
the 572 benefit, there are numerous similar cases to whom the same benefit will
have to be extended and there will be number of promotions and reversions
affecting the service.
Mr. Subba Rao repelled the submission saying
that the appellant has been making numerous representations which have fallen
on deaf ears and therefore, he should not be made to suffer and be the victim
of bureaucratic callousness and indifference.
It is now admitted that the petitioner had
filed Writ Petition No. 376 of 1968 in the High Court, of Andhra Pradesh and in
response to his request, the Government re- fixed the seniority of the
appellant in the cadre of sub- Registrars of Co-operative Societies just below
Shri N. Raghunatha Rao. It is also admitted that the petitioner became eligible
for promotion as Deputy Registrar from the year 1965. It is further admitted
that the petitioner has been working as Deputy Registrar with effect from
October 14, 1983.
The vertical line of promotion in
Co-operative service appears to be sub-Registrar of Co-operative Societies
moving upward as Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and then to special
category of Deputy Registrars and then as Joint Registrar. We were informed
that the post of Registrar is an I.A.S. cadre post. The appellant as Deputy
Registrar at present is in the pay scale of Rs. 1050-1600 and his substantive
pay is Rs. 1400 per month. The pay scale admissible for the post of special
category of Deputy Registrar is Rs. 1250-1800.
Mr. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the State
of A.P.
fairly stated that if the court does not
accept the interpretation as put by the Tribunal, then obviously the appellant
would be eligible for promotion from 1965. But his is not the lone case and if
the court grants him the relief as claimed by him, though he has sought relief
after a very long unexplained delay, it would create chaos in the service and
many promotions and reversions will have to be effected.
According to Mr. Ram Reddy, it is a case in
which monetary compensation would be more than adequate. There is considerable
force in this submission. As pointed out earlier, though undoubtedly the
appellant made number of representations, he moved for an effective relief as
late as 1977. We are therefore, not inclined to disturb the existing promotions
and postings by holding that the 573 appellant was entitled to promotion way
back in 1965. In this background, the appellant is entitled to some monetary
compensation.
Mr. Ram Reddy pointed out that after giving
the appellant a deemed promotion from 1965, if his monthly salary is worked out
according to the scale then admissible for the promotional post, roughly Rs.
1,20,000 would be payable to him. And if he is given the benifit, the State
cannot deny identical benefit to persons similarly situated and similarly
circumstanced. And they never questioned the alleged impropriety of not giving
them the benefit of the Government order in respect of reservations in promotional
posts. All these are relevant considerations and to some extent for this
situation the appellant himself is to blame.
Mr. Ram Reddy suggested that the adequate
monetary compensation could be around Rs. 30,000. On the other hand, Mr. A.
Subba Rao attempted to pursuade us to give all the backwages on the footing of
a deemed date of promotion. We propose to steer the middle course.
Before we determine the amount payable as
backwages, we must make it distinctly clear that while computing the amount we
have kept in view the period during which the appellant would be entitled to
relief at our hands. As pointed earlier, on a proper inter- pretation of the
relevant Government order, the appellant was entitled to promotion in the year
1965 which was postponed upto 1983.
Therefore, this amount which we propose to
award as compensation in the form of backwages is to be spread over for the
period 1965 to 1982. Now that the amount of Rs 40,000 which we are hereby
awarding is payable in one lump sum, presumably the Government may resort to
Sec. 192 of the Income Tax Act, but let it be made distinctly clear that the
appellant is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and
Rules 21A of the Income Tax Rules and he is entitled to relief of spread over.
Therefore, while computing the total amount of Rs 40,000 we have kept the
spread over in view for a period of roughly 17 years which would mean that he
is being awarded Rs. 2, 500 per year as backwages. This would not make the
income taxable, if it is not otherwise taxable. If therefore, any deduction is
made towards income tax while making the payment it is iucumbent upon the
Andhra Pardesh authorities to take all necessary steps to obtain the 574 relief
for the appellant under Sec. 89 of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 21A of the
Income Tax Rules.
The appellant is already promoted as Deputy
Registrar of Co operative Societies. The scale admissible for the post is Rs
1050 1600. We direct that the pay of the appellant shall be fixed at Rs. 1600 i.e.
the maximum of the scale effective from January 1, 1984 and he should be paid
Rs 40,000 in all towards backwages. We order accordingly. The payment herein
directed shall be made within a period of three months from today. We order
accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
Back
