Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Alok Awasthi (Ias) vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 28 January, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.3834/2010 Order reserved on 17th January 2014 Order pronounced on 28th January, 2014 Honble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J) Alok Awasthi (IAS) Labour Commissioner Govt. of Chhatisgarh Raipur, Chhatisgarh .. Applicant Advocate for applicant : Mr. Naresh Kaushik Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Personnel, P.G & Pensions Department of Personnel Training New Delhi 2. Govt. of Chhatisgarh Through its Secretary General Administration Section DKS Bhawan, Raipur Chhatisgarh 3. K K Bajpai Deputy Secretary Govt. of Chhatisgarh General Administration Department Mantralaya, Raipur 4. Ms. Shahila Nigar Director Technical Education Directorate of Technical Education Govt. of Chhatisgarh 5. Mr. Rohit Yadav Collectorate Raipur Raipur 492001 6. Mr. Kamal Preet Singh Directorate of Health Govt. of Chhatisgarh Mantralaya Campus Raipur 492001 7. Mr. Rajpal Singh Tyagi Collector-Korba Collectorat Korba ..Respondents Advocates for respondents Mr. R. N. Singh for respondent No.1 Mr. A.P. Mayee & Mr. Apoorv Kurup for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 None for other respondents O R D E R
Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj:
The short issue arises to be determined in the present original application is whether the service rendered by the applicant as Assistant Director Public Relations in the grade of Rs.8000-13500 from 5.2.1986 to 13.10.1993 should be taken into account for the purpose of assigning him the year of allotment in Indian Administrative Service (IAS).
2. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for applicant submitted that:
i) in view of the letter dated No.I-7/2005/1/2 dated 7.4.2010 (Annexure A/6) issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, the post of Assistant Director Public Relations has been declared equivalent to Deputy Collector of State Administrative Services (SAS) and since the applicant discharged function of the said post from 5.2.1986 to 13.10.1993, in assigning him the year of allotment under Regulation 3 (3) (ii) of the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987 (for short Regulation 1987) the official respondents ought to have taken into account the said service,
ii) S/Shri R P S Tyagi (2007), Brijesh Chandra Mishra (2008), Amrit Khalkho, Hemant Pahare and Dilip Washnikar (all three of 2009), who were junior to the applicant, are assigned 2001 as the year of allotment and made senior to him,
iii) the denial of benefit of service equivalent to Deputy Collector to the applicant would result in his continuous supersession,
iv) the posts of Under Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Accounts Officer, Madhya Pradesh Finance Services, Finance Department, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Cooperation Department, Assistant Engineer (Civil), Public Health Engineering Department and Assistant Director, Rural Industries Department have been treated equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector and the service rendered on said post is taken into account for the purpose of fixing the year of allotment of the concerned incumbent; and
v) vide order No.F.6(1)Pers/1-I/2004 dated 7.12.2006 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, the service rendered on a post equivalent to junior grade, i.e., in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 is taken into account while assigning the year of allotment to a candidate inducted in IAS by way of promotion.
3. In sum and substance, the stand taken by learned counsel for applicant is that the service rendered in junior grade of Rs.8000-13500 should be taken into account for determining the year of allotment by a promotee officer in the IAS.
4. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that:
i) As has been stated in the counter reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1, at the time of notification dated 14.3.2007 whereby in terms of the provisions contained in sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 7 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulation, 1997, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) approved the Select List of 2006 containing the name of applicant, a member of Non-State Civil Service of the State of Chhatisgarh prepared by the Selection Committee in its meetings held on 28.12.2006 towards filling up one existing vacancy in the Chhattisgarh cadre of IAS during 2006, the post of Assistant Director Public Relations in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 was not declared equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector, thus the service rendered by the applicant on said post from 5.2.1986 to 13.10.1993 cannot be taken into account for fixing his year of allotment,
ii) after getting a response from the Government of Chhattisgarh in this regard, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training issued communication dated 14.11.2011 taking the view that the State Government while declaring the post of Assistant Director Public Relations equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector with retrospective effect has not taken into account in general the nature of duties and responsibilities attached with the post and the decision is taken only with intention to grant benefit to the applicant herein in the mater of fixation of seniority in the cadre of IAS,
iii) in the event the applicant is granted the benefit of service rendered by him as Assistant Director Public Relations, the directly recruited IAS officers would be adversely affected,
iv) the aforesaid communication dated 14.11.2011 has not been challenged by the applicant in the present original application; and
v) the directly recruited IAS, who would be adversely affected by change of year of allotment by the applicant on the basis of the service rendered by him as Assistant Director Public Relations are not impleaded as party in the present original application.
5. Mr. A.P. Mayee, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 conceded the prayer made by the applicant in the original application. In the counter reply filed on behalf of said respondents, it has been stated that by the order dated 27.12.2006 issued by the General Administration Department, the post of Deputy Director Public Relations in the pay scale of Rs.10000-325-15200 was declared equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State Administrative Service. According to the said respondents, the applicant was working as Assistant Director Public Relations in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 w.e.f. 5.2.1986 and in response to the communication dated 3.9.2008 issued by the Government of India, the State Government vide its reply dated 7.4.2010 made it clear that on the basis of the representation of the applicant, it would have no difficulty in treating the Assistant Director Public Relations in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 as equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector.
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. Section 3 of All India Services Act, 1951 provided that the Central Government may, after consultation with the Governments of the States concerned, including the State of Jammu & Kashmir, make rules for the regulation of recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to an all-India Service. In exercise of the powers conferred by said provision (Regulation 3 (3) (ii) of Regulation 1987) and in pursuance of the sub-rule 2 of Rule 8 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 and in supersession of the Indian Administrative Services (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955, the Central Government, in consultation with the State Governments and the UPSC, made the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulation, 1997. In Regulation 3 of the said Regulation 1997, it was provided that the Central Government shall, in consultation with the State Government concerned, determine the number of vacancies for which recruitment may be made under the regulations each year and the number of selected candidates should not exceed the number of substantive vacancies, as on the first day of January of the year, in which the meeting of the Committee to make the selection is held. Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 made in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the All-India Services Act, 1951 (LXI of 1951), provided for recruitment to IAS after the commencement of the Rules. In terms of the said Rule, the recruitment to the post could be made by (a) by a competitive examination, (aa) omitted by GSR 729 (E) dated 31.12.1997, (b) by promotion of substantive member of a State Civil Service and (c) by selection, in special cases from amongst persons who hold in a substantive capacity gazetted posts connection with the affairs of a State and who are not members of a State Civil Service. For easy reference, relevant excerpt of Rule 4 of the said Rules 1954 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
4. Method of recruitment to the Service.- (1) Recruitment to the Service after the commencement of these rules, shall be by the following methods, namely:-
(a) by a competitive examination;
(aa) omitted by GSR 729 (E) dated 31.12.1997,
(b) by promotion of substantive member of a State Civil Service;
(c) by selection, in special cases from amongst persons who hold in a substantive capacity gazetted posts connection with the affairs of a State and who are not members of a State Civil Service.
8. As has been noticed hereinabove, in terms of the provisions contained in sub-rule 2 of Rule 7 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulation, 1997 the UPSC approved the Select List of 2006 containing the name of the applicant towards filling up of one existing vacancy in the IAS cadre in Chhattisgarh during 2006. Vide letter No.14014/22/2004-AIS (I) dated 20.7.2007 (Annexure A-1) addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training informed that the applicant was appointed to IAS on the basis of 2006 Select List and the question of fixation of his year of allotment had been considered in accordance with Rule 3 (3) (ii) of Regulation 1987 (ibid) and he was assigned 2000 as his year of allotment. For the purpose of inter-se-seniority, he was to be placed below Dr. Rohit Yadav, IAS (RR:2002) and above Mr. Pradeshi Siddhartha Komal, IAS (RR:2003). For easy reference, relevant excerpt of the said letter is extracted as under:-
I am directed to refer to your letter No.E.I-3/2006/1/2 dated 27th April, 2007 and Fax No. E1-7/2006/1/2 dated 9th July, 2007 on the subject mentioned above and to say that five State Civil Service Officers and one non-SCS officer from the Select List for the year 2006 approved by the Union Public Service Commission have been appointed to the Indian Administrative Service vide Notification No.14015/05/2006-AIS (I)-B dated 23rd February, 2007 and dated 14th March, 2007 respectively. The service details reckonable for the purpose of fixation of year of allotment are given below:-
S.No. as per Select List Name S/Shri Date of appointment to SCS in the post of Dy Collector or equivalent Weightage admissible (years) 2 Trilok Chandra Mahawar 4.6.84 7
3. L.S. Ken 24.11.86 6
4. Ram Singh Thakur (1986) 24.11.86 6
5. N.K. Khakha 24.11.86 6
6. Ram Singh Thakur (1987) 1.9.87 6
2. The question of fixation of their Year of Allotment has been considered in accordance with Rule 3 (3)(ii) of the I.A.S. (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987. The last SCS officer appointed to the Chhatisgarh Cadre from the 2005 Select List Shri S.R. Brahmane was assigned 2000 as his year of allotment. Though Shri Trilok Chandra Mahawar is entitled to 1999 as his year of allotment, his seniority is restricted under proviso to Rule 3 (3) (ii) of the IAS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987 as he cannot be assigned year of allotment earlier than the year of allotment assigned to an officer senior to him from the previous Select List. He is accordingly assigned 2000 as his year of allotment. All the other four officers viz. S/Shri. L.S. Ken, Ram Singh Thakur, (1986) N.K. Khakha and Ram Singh Thakur (1987) are entitled to and assigned the year of allotment of 2000 under the said rule. For the purpose of inter-se seniority, S/Shri Trilok Chandra Mahawar, L.S. Ken, Ram Singh Thakur (1986), N.K. Khakha and Ram Singh Thakur (1987) shall be placed en block below Shri S.R. Brahmane. IAS (SCS:2000) and above Ms. Shahla Nigar, IAS (RR:2001).
3. Further, service details of one non-SCS officer appointed to the IAS on the basis of 2006 Select List, reckonable for the purpose of fixation of year of allotment, are given below:-
S.No. as per Select List Name Date of continuous appointment to the post in State Service equivalent to the post of Dy. Collector Weightage admissible (years)
1. Shri Alok Awasthi 13.10.1993 4
4. The question of fixation of his Year of Allotment has been considered in accordance with Rule 3 (3) (iii) of the I.A.S. (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987. Shri Alok Awasthi is entitled to and assigned 2002 as his year of allotment. For the purpose of inter-se seniority, he will be placed below Dr. Rohit Yadav, IAS (RR:2002) and above Shri Pradeshi Siddhartha Komal, IAS (RR:2003).
9. It is relevant to note here that the assignment of year of allotment to an officer in Service (IAS) at the commencement of Regulation 1987 (ibid) should be the same as assigned to him or may be assigned to him by the Central Government in accordance with the orders immediately before the commencement of the Rules. The assignment of year of allotment to a promotee officer is determined in terms of Regulation 3 (3) (ii) of the Regulation 1987. In the terms of said Regulations, the year of allotment of a promotee officer shall be determined with reference to the year for which the meeting of the Committee to make selection, to prepare the select list on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, was held and with regard to the continuous service rendered by him in the State Civil Service not below the rank of a Deputy Collector or equivalent, up to the 31st day of December of the year immediately before the year for which meeting of the Committee to make selection was held to prepare the select list on the basis of which he was appointed to the service. In terms of sub-clause (a) of sub-rule (ii) of Regulation 3 of the Regulation 1987, for the service rendered by him upto 21 years, the promotee is given weightage of one year for every completed three years of service, subject to a minimum of 4 years and for the service rendered beyond the period of 21 years, he is given weightage of one year for each completed service of two years subject to maximum of 3 years. For easy reference, Regulation 3 (3) of the Regulation 1987 is extracted hereinbelow:-
(3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the Service after the commencement of these rules shall be as follows:-
(i) xx xx xx xx
(ii) The year of allotment of a promotee officer shall be determined with reference to the year for which the meeting of the Committee to make selection, to prepare the select list on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, was held and with regard to the continuous service rendered by him in the State Civil Service not below the rank of a Deputy Collector or equivalent, up to the 31st day of December of the year immediately before the year for which meeting of the Committee to make selection was held to prepare the select list on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, in the following manner:-
a. for the service rendered by him upto twenty one years, he shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed three years of service, subject to a minimum of four years;
b. he shall also be given a weightage of one year for every completed two years of service beyond the period of twenty one years, referred to in sub-clause (a), subject to a maximum of three years.
Explanation- For the purpose of calculation of the weightage under this clause, the fractions, if any, are to be ignored:
Provided that he shall not be assigned a year of allotment earlier than the year of allotment assigned to an officer senior to him in that select list or appointed to the service on the basis of an earlier select list.
10. It is the case of the applicant that when he assumed the charge of the post of Assistant Director, Public Relations w.e.f. 5.2.1986, he should be given benefit of service between 5.2.1986 to 13.10.1993 in view of the provisions of Regulation 3 (2) (ii) of the Regulation 1987. According to him, for six completed years of service between the aforesaid period (from 5.2.1986 to 13.10.1993), he should be given benefit of three years in determination of year of allotment and the total weightage need to be given to him in assigning the seniority should be seven years.
11. Ex facie we find that in terms of the aforementioned Rules, upto the service of 21 years, not below the rank of Deputy Collector, a promotee IAS is given weightage of one year for every completed three years of service, subject to a minimum of four years. In this way, for the service rendered between 5.2.1986 to 31.12.2005, the applicant could get the weightage of approximately seven years, but since the service rendered by him in the rank of Assistant Director Public Relations was not taken into account, he was given the weightage of only four years of service. Vide communication dated 7.4.2010, the Government of Chhattisgarh made it clear that the State Government had decided to accept the contentions of the applicant that the service rendered by him should be treated in the rank equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector. For easy reference, relevant excerpt of the letter dated 14.10.2011 addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Chhatisgarh, General Administration Department Mantralaya is extracted hereinbelow:-
The para wise reply to your letter dated 29.12.2010, subsuming the points raised in your letter dated 16/06/2011:
1. It is clarified that the state government has not retrospectively declared the post of Assistant director, Public relations, equivalent to the post of deputy collector under the state government. Attention is drawn to our letter dated 07/04/2010 (copy enclosed), wherein it is stated that having examined Shri. Awasthis representation in this respect, the state government has decided to accept his contention that the post of the Assistant Director, Public Relations be treated as equivalent to the post of Deputy collector and forward his representation to the GOI for decision in, consultation with the UPSC. Since no general order has been issued and only Shri. Awasthis representation has been considered, an objective analysis of claims of other officers, occupying the said post before or after Shri. Awasthi was not warranted.
2. In the light of above, no such certification seems warranted.
3. A Show cause notice was served on Ms. Shahla Nigar, Sh. Rajpal Tyagi, Dr. Kamalpreet Singh and Dr. Rohit Yadav, as directed. The information sought by Ms. Nigar was given to her subsequently and she was asked to give her comments. She has replied that the comments forwarded by her earlier on the matter on 03/05/2011 and communicated to DoPT may be accepted as her final comments on the issue. Dr. Kamalpreet singh and Dr. Rohit yadav have objected to the proposed revision of seniority of Shri. Awasthi. The comments of all the three officers are being forwarded along with this letter. No comments have been received by Shri. Rajpal Singh Tyagi.
4. The State government has considered the views of the officers concerned and is of the view that revision of seniority of Shri Awasthi is not going to substantively effect their seniority and thereby their promotions.
2/ It is requested that the case may be decided expeditiously and the decision be communicated to the state Government at the earliest.
12. Respondent No.1 has also not denied that vide order dated 7.12.2006 issued by the Government of Rajasthan the junior scale posts of Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS) is treated as equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector. When in paragraph 5.2 of the original application it was specifically stated that those included in subsequent select lists have been assigned seniority ahead of the applicant, i.e., 2001, respondent No.1 has not given any reply to the same and has only reiterated the contention of the applicant. It is quite bizarre that in reply to the original application filed by the applicant, instead of meeting his contention, respondent No.1 has reiterated the same. For easy reference, paragraph 5 of the counter reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
5. (i) The first contention of the applicant herein is that this respondent is not allowing the benefit of seniority to the applicant in terms of Regulation 3 (3) (ii) of the IAS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987 by ignoring seven years of service rendered by the applicant in at the post of Assistant Director, Public Relations under the State Government i.e. w.e.f. 5.2.1986 to 13.10.1993 arbitrarily by not considering the same equivalent to the post of Dy Collector under the State Government.
It is further elaborated that this respondent has counted his continuous appointment to the post of deputy collector or equivalent in the State Government w.e.f. 13.10.1993 only and have allowed him a weightage of 4 years against that service. If his service rendered on the post of the Assistant Director, Public Relations w.e.f. 5.2.1986 to 13.10.1993 is also counted for this purpose, he will be entitled for higher seniority.
(ii). The second contention of the applicant is that he had sent many requests to the respondent to address his grievance to restore his due seniority. However, no action has been taken by the respondent on the same.
(iii). The third contention of the applicant is that action of the respondent results in successive supersession of the applicant by his juniors who have been appointed to IAS from subsequent select lists of 2007, 2008 and 2009, namely S/Shri, R.P.S. Tyagi, Brijesh Chandra Mishra, Amrit Khalkho, Hemant Pahare and Dilip Washnikar respectively.
13. When the rebuttal to the original application on behalf of respondent No.1 is halfhearted, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have conceded the prayer made in the original application. As far as the plea raised by Mr. R.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 that in view of the communication dated 14.11.2011 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training the original application of the applicant is not maintainable, we are of the view that firstly the said letter is only a communication between two Departments and does not give any cause of action to the applicant and secondly in view of Section 19 (4) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 when the present original application was pending before the Tribunal, every proceeding to the redressal of the grievance in relation to the subject matter of the application pending before the department stood abated and the communication dated 14.11.2011 is of no consequence. For easy reference, Section 19 (4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is extracted as under:-
(4) Where an application has been admitted by a Tribunal under sub-section (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject-matter of such application pending immediately before such admission shall abate and save as otherwise directed by the Tribunal, no appeal or representation in relation to such matter shall thereafter be entertained under such rules.
14. As far as the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties raised by Mr. R.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 is concerned, we find that by way of amendment of memo of parties the applicant impleaded Ms. Shahila Nigar, Mr. Rajpal Singh Tyagi, Dr. Kamal Preet Singh and Dr. Rohit Yadav as respondent Nos. 4 to 7 to the original application. Notice issued by the Tribunal to said persons was duly served upon them, but none of them preferred to file any objection to the original application.
15. Regarding the plea of the applicant that only promotee IAS and not the direct recruitment officers were impleaded as respondents in the original application, we are of the view that after induction to IAS there could be no difference in the stand of promotee and IAS regarding bearing of the service rendered by Assistant Director, Public Relations on assignment of year of allotment to him. The objection, which a direct recruit could take in this regard, could be taken by a promotee also. The impleadment of one of such individual whose seniority is likely to be adversely affected by the decision in the proceedings involving the question of determination of seniority in respective capacity, sufficiently satisfy the requirement of impleadment of necessary parties. In the circumstances, the original application cannot be held as bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
16. In Prabodh Verma & others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, (1984) 4 SCC 251, it could be held thus:-
28. The real question before us, therefore, is the correctness of the decision of the High Court in the Sangh's case. Before we address ourselves to this question, we would like to point out that the writ petition filed by the Sangh suffered from two serious, though not incurable, defects. The first defect was that of non-joinder of necessary parties. The only respondents to the Sangh's petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its concerned officers. Those who were vitally concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties-not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh's writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties.
xx xx xx xx xx
50. To summarize our conclusions:
(1) A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually, and, if the petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non- joinder of necessary parties.
17. Nevertheless, we find that at the relevant point of time, i.e., when the applicant was included in the select list as appointment in IAS, the Government of Chhattisgarh considered the Deputy Director as equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector under the State Government. It was only on 7.4.2010 that they made it clear that the post of Assistant Director, Public Relations is also equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector, as the post of Deputy Collector is in the pay scale of Rs.10000-325-15200 (pre-revised). When in the relevant rules (ibid) it is specifically provided that the promotee IAS need to be given the weightage of the service rendered by him in the rank not below the Deputy Collector in the manner prescribed in sub-clauses (a) & (b) to clause (ii) of sub-rule (3) to Rule 3 of the Regulation 1987, i.e., weightage of one year for every three years of completed service and weightage of two years beyond 21 years of completed service in the grade, in the event service rendered on the post of Assistant Director, Public Relations is considered equivalent to that rank of Deputy Collector, there could be no reason that why the applicant should not be given the benefit of the service rendered on the said post between 5.2.1986 to 13.10.1993. None of the official respondents are found having espoused serious objection to the claim of the applicant. In the circumstances, we are of the view that Union of India should not depend upon the certification of a particular post by the State Government, i.e., whether the same is equivalent to the Deputy Collector or not and at should take uniform view in the matter. We also find sufficient merit in the stand taken on behalf of respondent No.1 that not only the pay scale but the duty of the post should also match with that of Deputy Collector before a promotee IAS is given benefit of service for the purpose of determination of year of allotment.
18. In the circumstances, the original application is disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to verify whether the duty of the post of Assistant Director, Public Relations was comparable with that of Deputy Collector and whether the service rendered in junior grade, i.e., in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 is taken into account for the purpose of giving weightage in fixing the year of allotment of a promotee IAS. They would also ascertain whether any one appointed as IAS in terms of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulation, 1997 is given the benefit of service rendered by him in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 for the purpose of Regulation 3 (3) (ii) (a) & (b) of the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987, even when the duty of the post held by him in the said grade was not comparable with that of Deputy Collector. In case it is found that the service rendered by promotee in junior grade of Rs.8000-13500 is considered equivalent to the rank of Deputy Collector irrespective of the fact that the duty of the post was not comparable with that of Deputy Collector, or it is found that the duty of the post of Assistant Director, Public Relations held by the applicant for the relevant period is comparable with that of Deputy Director, the official respondent would take into account the service rendered by the applicant from 5.2.1986 to 13.10.1993 for the purpose of fixing his year of allotment in terms of Regulation 3 (3) (ii) (a) & (b) of the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987. No costs.
( A.K. Bhardwaj ) ( Sudhir Kumar ) Member (J) Member (A) /sunil/