Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Jai Pal Singh And Another on 26 March, 2012
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 5535 of 2012
DATE OF DECISION : 26.03.2012
Union of India and others
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
Jai Pal Singh and another
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Gahlawat, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The Union of India and others have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 21.10.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'), whereby Original Application No. 1027-HR of 2010 filed by Jai Pal Singh (respondent No.1 herein) to consider his claim for placing him in a higher grade under Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) Scheme and BCR Scheme, on completion of 16 and 26 years of service, respectively, was allowed, while observing as under : CWP No. 5535 of 2012 -2-
"The view obtained by the respondents deserves to be negatived in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India and others Vs. M. Mathivanam : (2006) 6 SCC
57. While considering the aspect of eligibility for purposes of a such like scheme, the Apex Court held that the official belonging to basic grades in Group `C' and `D', who complete 16 years of service will be entitled to be placed in the next higher grade; while they could be considered for promotion only after they had completed 16 years of regular service. The distinction between the two items of adjudication is clear. For purposes of claiming eligibility for being placed in the next higher grade, an employee has to prove that he has completed 16 years of service. That, by itself, determines the eligibility for the placement in the next higher grade. However, if an employee claims entitlement for purposes of promotion, he shall have to prove that he has completed regular service for the period indicated by the relevant rule-formulation. It is qua those observations that the Apex Court reiterated the distinction between time-bound placement in the higher grade and regular promotion. It was held in the context that time-bound placement in higher grade and regular promotions are two different concepts inasmuch as the placement in the former does not affect the seniority of those in seniority in the cadre."
Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the following two clauses of TBOP/BCR Scheme, as mentioned in Circular No. 31-26/83- PE.I dated 17.12.1983 :
"(1) The scheme will come into effect from 30.11.1983. All officials belonging to basic grades in Group `C' and Group `D' to which there is direct recruitment either from outside and/or CWP No. 5535 of 2012 -3- by means of limited competitive examination from lower cadre, and who have completed 16 years of service in that grade will be placed in the next higher grade. Officials belonging to operative cadres listed in the Annexe A-1 to the agreement will be covered under the scheme.
(2) The Head of Circles/Divisional Superintendents/Heads of other functional units will take immediate action to identify the officials who have completed 16 years of regular service in the cadres/covered under the scheme as on 30.11.83 as well as the officials who will complete 16 years of service from 1.12.83 to 31.3.84."
Learned counsel further pointed out that case of respondent No.1 falls under clause 1, where only 16 years of service is the requirement and not 16 years of regular service, as required under clause 2.
In view of the aforesaid factual position, in our view, the learned Tribunal, while relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and others Vs. M. Mathivanan (2006) 6 SCC 57, has rightly come to the conclusion that respondent No.1 is to be placed in higher grade under TBOP and BCR Schemes, on completion of 16 and 26 years of service, as undisputedly he was granted temporary status Group D under Casual Labourer Scheme with effect from 29.11.1989. If the said service is counted, then respondent No.1 has completed 16 and 26 years of service and becomes eligible for grant of benefits under the aforesaid Schemes. Thus, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the CWP No. 5535 of 2012 -4- Tribunal.
No merit. Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
March 26, 2012 ( T.P.S. MANN )
ndj JUDGE