Patna High Court
State Of Bihar And Ors. vs Jitan Saw on 7 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)BLJR1300
Author: R.S. Garg
Bench: R.S. Garg
JUDGMENT
1. This Letters Patent Appeal by the State of Bihar and its officers arises from a writ petition, CWJC No. 8460/96, which the sole respondent preferred for quashing the order of the Superintending Engineer, Design Circle, Road Construction Department, dated 26.6.1996, rejecting his claim for second time-bound promotion. The learned Single Judge before whom the case came up for hearing took a view, that though the respondent had been allowed regular promotions as Draftsman Grade II and Draftsman Grade I and thereby he was entitled to salary in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600/-, the same was not given. It was by virtue of the second time bound promotion that he started getting salary in that scale which has since been cancelled and decision has been taken to recover the excess amount fixing salary in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-. In the opinion of the learned Judge, if the respondent was not entitled to the scale admissible to the post of Draftsmen Grade I, he was certainly entitled to time bound promotion. The learned Judge accordingly disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to revise the salary of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 1400- 2600/- either treating him to be Draftsmen Grade I or by way of second time bound promotion.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Tracer on 19.7.1962. In course of time he was granted regular promotion to the post of Draftsman Grade II on 10.5.1976 and another regular promotion to the post of Draftsman Grade I on 16.1.1988/28.9.1991 with effect from 10.5.1978. The respondent claimed second time bound promotion on completion of 25 years of service with effect from 19.7.1987 in accordance with the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee. In fact on 11.5.1990 he was allowed the benefit of second time bound promotion with effect from 19.7.1987 which was later cancelled on 5.6.1995. The respondent challenge the said order before this Court in CWJC No. 4490/95. On 21.12.1995 the impugned order was quashed on the ground that the decision had been taken without giving opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, notice was issued to the respondent and fresh order was passed reiterating the earlier decision on 26.6.1996. It is this order for quashing of which the respondent filed the writ petition which has given rise to the present appeal.
3. In view of the admitted case of the parties that two regular promotions were allowed to the respondent during his service career he was clearly not entitled to any time bound promotion. The relevant resolution of the State Government stipulates that if an employee has not been able to earn a single promotion in his entire service career he should be allowed two time bound promotions one on completion of 10 years of service and the other on completion of 25 years of service by giving monetary benefits of the higher grade as an anti-stagnation measure. Where the employee has been able to earn regular promotion, no question of giving any time bound promotion arises. At least before this Bench, no argument to the contrary was made on behalf of the respondent.
4. The dispute seems to have arisen on account of claim of the respondent for grant of scale of Rs. 1400-2600/-. It appears that he had been allowed that scale on 11.8.1990 when he was given the second time bound promotion with effect from 19.7.1987. However, as the respondent has been found to be not entitled to any time bound promotion the only question for consideration is whether he was entitled to scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- upon his promotion as Draftsman Grade I. As noticed above, it is this plea of the respondent which weighed with the learned Single Judge when he noticed his grievance to the effect that though he had been promoted as Draftsmen Grade I, salary available against that post in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- was not given and the second time bound promotion which resulted in payment of salary in that scale was later cancelled. It was for this reason that the learned Single Judge directed the respondent to either grant him the second time bound promotion or revise his scale in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- "treating him to be Draftsman Grade I". There is no question of not treating the respondent as Draftsman Grade I as his promotion on that post has not been questioned at any time. Thus the only question is whether by virtue of his promotion as Draftsman Grade I the respond, it was entitled to salary in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600.
5. Perusal of the Government order contained in letter of the Finance Department dated 20.11.1991 addressed to the Accountant General, produced by the respondent himself leaves no room for doubt that scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- is the revised replacement scale of the erstwhile scale of Rs. 730-1080/- for the post of Draftsman Grade I with effect from 1.1.1986. The said decision appears to have been taken to resolve the anomaly arising out of different pay scales admissible to the Draftsman of the Revenue and Land Reforms Department on the one hand the different Works Department on the other in the light of the direction of this Court in CWJC No. 67/90. It is well settled that in the matter of pay fixation the High Court cannot direct the Government to allow the pay which is not admissible to the post, nor it can meddle with the pay revision made by the Government. It can make only a limited enquiry as to what scale of pay has been fixed for the post. In view of the above said Government order dated 20.11.1991 brought on record by the respondent himself, he cannot be held entitled to the scale of Rs. 1400-2600/-.
6. In the supplementary affidavit apart from the details of the pay etc. allowed to the respondent from time to time it has been stated that the respondent was simply a matriculates and as he did not possess degree or diploma in Civil Draftsmenship from any Industrial Training Institutes (III), he was not even entitled to be promoted as Draftsman Grade I but by mistake of the office on his representation the respondent was promoted to the said post. The actual order of promotion having been issued on 28.9.1991 vide Annexure B to the counter affidavit filed before the writ Court, the respondent has been treated as promoted on the post of Draftsman Grade I from 28.9.1991 when he started performing the duties of that post upon his promotion up to 29.2.1996 when he superannuated. He has already been allowed monetary benefits of promotion for the said period. The excess amount already has been recovered.
7. In the above premises we are satisfied that the respondent was not entitled to the scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- either by virtue of his promotion as Draftsman Grade I or by virtue of any time bound promotion. In this view of the matter, we are not able to sustain the direction of the learned Single Judge.
8. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside.