Union of India &
ANR. Vs. G. Rajanna & Ors. [2008] INSC 1739 (15 October 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6590-6592 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.19953-19955 of 2005) UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Appellant(s) Versus G. RAJANNA & ORS. Respondent(s) ORDER Dr. ARIJIT
PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Questioning
correctness of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Karnataka
High Court the Union of India and the Director, Central Poultry Breeding Farm
Hassarghatta, Bangalore having filed these appeals. The controversy lies within
a very narrow campass. The -2- respondents who were working as Malis
(Gardeners) claimed promotion on the basis of office memorandum dated 13th
September, 1991 as modified by the office memorandum dated 6th November, 1991.
Both the office memorandums related to Career advancements of Group 'C' and
Group 'D' employees. Originally the employees were given a scale of pay of
Rs.950/- - Rs.1540/- with a starting pay of Rs.950/- with effect from 1st
April, 1991. Subsequently, it was clarified that they were entitled to lesser
scale of pay i.e. Rs.775/- - Rs.1025/-. The basis of the claim of the employees
was sub-para (f) of the office memorandum dated 13th September, 1991 which
reads as under :- "Employees given promotion in situ will continue to be
borne on the seniority list of the lower cadre/post and will be considered for
functional promotion against available vacancies as per provisions of the
Recruitment Rules."
The appellants placed
reliance on Clause 2(c) and Clause 2(f) of the aforesaid office memorandum.
After considering the rival stand of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Bangalore Bench (in short the 'CAT') which heard the original application Nos.
573, 666 and 667 of -3- 1999 observed that the applicants cannot claim the
scale of Lower Division Clerk by way of in-situ promotion. Therefore, the
prayer made for relief was rejected by the CAT. The respondents-employees moved
the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 30501-30503 of 2000. The High
Court accepted the stand of the employees and observed as under :- "No
doubt, the CAT has adverted to the facts pleaded in the original applications
of the petitioners with reference to the statement of counter filed by the
respondents. The CAT has proceeded to examine the claim of these petitioners
with reference to the prescriptions of the qualification under the Cadre and
Recruitment Rules for fixation of the higher pay scales to their posts
irrespective of the fact as to whether it is a functional or non-functional.
The object of the office Memorandum referred to supra with non-functional
posts, fixation of pay-scales is to see the Group 'C' and 'D' employees in the
offices of the respondents shall not be allowed to stagnate in the same cadre
and therefore, certain monetary benefits are fixed by the respondents as
provided at paragraph 20 of the office Memorandum produced at Annexure -4-
'C'. Non consideration of this important aspect of the matter and rejection of
the claim of the petitioners by the CAT solely on this ground that they do not
possess the qualification of Matriculation as per C & R Rules has rendered
the impugned order erroneous in law."
Learned Additional
Solicitor General appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court
misconstrued the scope and ambit of Clause 2(c) and 2(f) of the office
Memorandum. Learned counsel for the employees supported the judgment of the
High Court.
It is to be noted
that the Tribunal's conclusion is based on a reading of Clause 2(c) and 2(f) of
the office Memorandum dated 13th September, 1991 as modified subsequently by
office Memorandum dated 6th November, 1991. Clause 2 of the office Memorandum
dated 6th November, 1991 reads as under :- "It is clarified that in terms
of para 2(a) of O.M. dated 13.9.1991, in situ promotion is to be allowed only
to the next higher scale available in the line of promotion if the requisite
conditions are fulfilled. In other words, subject to the satisfaction of the
conditions prescribed in the said O.M. Group 'D' employees in the -5- scale of
Rs.750-940 will normally be considered for in situ promotion to the next higher
scale of Rs.775-1025 as that is the next available scale in most of the
organisations. So is the case for promotion of employees in the scale of
Rs.800- 1150 are to be promoted to the scale of Rs.825-1200. However if in any
particular organisation promotions of Group 'D' employees are required to be
made in a higher scale instead of scale indicated here, in accordance with the
Rules of Recruitment, in situ promotion will also be allowed to the scale to
which promotions are made in that organisation."
The observation of
the Tribunal to the effect that the employees cannot claim scale of Lower
Division Clerks by way of in situ promotion runs contrary to the stand taken by
the Union of India all through. The High Court in our view has correctly
analysed the office Memorandum and also rightly noted that object of office
Memorandum related to non-functional posts and fixation of pay scales is to see
that Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees in the offices of the present appellants
are not allowed to stagnate in the same cadre and certain monetary benefits are
fixed by the noted paragraph of the office Memorandum.
-6- In our
considered view, the judgment of the High Court is based on a correct
interpretation of the relevant clause of the office Memorandum and no
interference is called for in these appeals. Hence the appeals fail and are
dismissed but without any order as to costs.
....................J.
(Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT)
.....................J.
(C.K. THAKKER)
.....................J
Back
Pages: 1 2