Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shail Bala (Smt.) vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 September, 2007
Equivalent citations: RLW2008(2)RAJ1506
Author: R.M. Lodha
Bench: R.M. Lodha
JUDGMENT R.M. Lodha, J.
1. Ramesh Chand Sharma-petitioner (for short 'the employee') was selected for the post of Section Officer in Beas Project and appointed accordingly in the pay scale of Rs. 200-10-280-15-430-20-450 w.e.f. 2nd November, 1973. With effect from 1st January, 1978, the employee got his pay scale revised to Rs. 700-1200 P.M. He claims to have been declared quasi-permanent w.e.f. 3rd February, 1977 by the order of the Superintending Engineer (Administration and Account Circle) Beas Project Unit-I, Sundernagar (Himachal Pradesh) dated 20th November, 1980.
2. Upon winding up of the Beas project in the year 1984 or so, the employee was declared surplus. Consequently, vide order dated 21st December, 1984, the employee was placed in Central (Surplus staff) Cell in the same scale of pay (700-1200) as was drawn by the petitioner in the Beas Project.
3. By the order dated 9th May, 1985 the employee was transferred to the Defence Ministry. The letter dated 9th May, 1985 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personal & Training, recorded that the surplus junior engineers including the employee were already drawing pay in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1200 and the Dearness Allowance in vogue for the Punjab Government for their junior engineers and adopted by the Beas Construction Board shall continue unabated. It was stated in the said letter that the surplus employees were being treated as holding post corresponding to those carrying the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 available in the Central Government Department for the purpose of their redeployment.
4. The employee was redeployed in MES vide Head Quarter Southern Command-letter dated 2nd July, 1985 The employee felt aggrieved having been redeployed in lower post and in lower pay scale. According to him, there has been financial loss and loss of status by his absorption in lower post and lower pay scale. He, thus, made a representation on 8th May, 1991 for redressal of his greivance.
5. Having not received any favourable response to his representation dated 8th May, 1991, he approached the Central administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the reliefs, inter-alia:
(i) that the respondents be directed to place him in the next higher grade i.e. Supdt. E/M Grade I commensurate with his status and fur suitable modification of the pay scale; and
(ii) that the respondents be directed to treat the service rendered by him with the Beas Project as service rendered with the Government -for the purpose of granting next higher pay scale.
6. The employee founded his case on the basis of the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal given by the Bangalore Bench on 31st March, 1995 in group of Original Applications being OA No. 1337 and 1364 to 1375 whereby the following relief was granted to the concerned employees:
18. For the reasons discussed above we deem it proper to allow the application and grant the relief sought. Consequently Annex-A/10 order dt. 8.4.94 issued by R/2 is hereby quashed. We further direct the respondent to grant higher pay scale as that paid to Jes in CPWD in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 to the applicant in Grd-11 Supdt. who as and when complete 5 years of service in the grade wef. 1.1.86 and who as and when complete 15 years of service in that grade the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 with effect from 1.1.91 on the same line contained in the communication of MUD dated 21.3.1991 addressed to GD (Work) CPWD as in Annexure-A/2. The direction should be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No cost.
7. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the employee set-up the case that in-pursuance of the decision dated 31st March, 1995 given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, the Ministry of Defence vide their order dated 25th April, 1996 issued instructions that the higher pay scale as was being paid to the junior engineers in CPWD be made applicable to Superintendents (BR/EM)/Surveyor Assistant Grade-I and Grade II of MES. According to him, that meant that the employees who were in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 and Rs. 1640-2900 after completion of five years in that scale w.e.f. 1st January, 1986 and those drawing pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 shall be upgraded to the next higher scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 1st January, 1991 after completion of 15 years service. The employee, thus, submitted before the Tribunal that. having rendered 14 years satisfactory service with the Beas Project prior to his redeployment in the Army Organisation on being declared surplus was entitled to his past service with Beas project being counted for the purpose of benefits of higher pay scale of Rs. 11640-2900 w.e.f. 1st January 1986 and Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 1st January 1991.
8. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. K. Savitri and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 6201-6/1995 deci3ed on 4th March, 1998 and held that the past service rendered by the employee in the Beas Project cannot be counted towards qualifying service for MES and consequently dismissed the Original Application on 22nd February, 2000.'
9. The employee applied to the Central Administrative Tribunal for review of its order dated 22nd February, 2000 which came to be dismissed on 13th April, 2000. The orders dated 22nd February, 2000 and 13th April, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal are impugned in the present writ petition.
10. It is true that few decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal given by its different benches support the employee's stand. In Original Application No. 109/1995 K.S. Anand v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 22nd December, 1999, the Tribunal directed the respondents to take into account the service rendered by the applicant in the Beas Construction Board as qualifying service for eligibility of promotion to higher horizontal and vertical scales. In its order dated 22nd December, 1999 in the case of K.S. Anand, the Tribunal referred to the controversy raised before various benches of the Tribunal in paragraph 3 of the order thus:
3. This controversy has been agitated before various Benches of this Tribunal. Some of these are (i) Tarlok Singh v. UOI and Ors. in OA No. 613-JK of 1988 decided by the Chandigarh Bench on 18.11.1988, (ii) Rajkurnar Sharda v. UOI and Ors., OA No. 609/CH/88 decided by the Chandigarh Bench on 5.1.1989, (iii) Prayagrao Latorao Baraskar v. UOI, OA No. 866/93 decided by Bombay Bench, Camp Nagpur on 19.7.1995, (iv) R.K. Bhiman and Ors. v. UOI decided on 29.11.1996 by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal and (v) Chandra Mani Sharma and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. decided by the Chandigarh Bench on 15.5.1998. The SLP filed by the UOI and Ors. against the order of the Tribunal in R.K. Bhiman and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. was dismissed by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India vide their order dated 20.7.1997 and the decision has acquired finality.
10.1. Based on the aforesaid decisions, the Tribunal held that the case of that applicant was similarly placed and issued direction as afore-noticed.
11. Similar view was expressed by the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 214/HR/98 Karnail Singh Jandu and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. decided on 21st November, 2000. This is what the Tribunal said in its order dated 21st November, 2000 in the case of Karnail Singh Jandu:
Corning to the merits of the case, it is not denied that policy decision Annexure A/1 which was initially applicable to CPWD employees has been made applicable to Superintendents of MES also who have been redesignated as Jr. Engineers and have been extended the benefit of the said circular on the basis of judgment of Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal and the applicants have also been granted the benefit of the said circular, but on the basis of service rendered by them only in MES without any benefit of service rendered by them in BCB prior to joining the present department. It is also not disputed that excol-leagues of the applicant who are serving in CPWD and filed OA before this Bench claiming benefit of service rendered by them in BCB for the grant of higher pay scale as envisaged in circular Annexure A/1, and this OA was allowed vide order dated 29.11.96 (Ann. A/2) which was subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by is order dated 28.7.97 (Ann. A/3) passed in SLP.
13. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the applicant also brought to our notice another judgment rendered by a Bench of this tribunal in OA 101/PB/93, dated 15.5.98, granting the same benefits to ex BCB employees with regard to higher pay scales who were serving in CPWD. The said judgment has also been upheld by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP-CAT/1999.
14. Considering all these facts, the case of the applicants is covered by the judgment of this Bench dated 29.11.96 (Ann.A/2) and the applicants are held entitled to the same relief. Consequently, the present OA is allowed with a direction to the respondents that the applicants shall be paid higher pay scales according to number of years put in by them in the BCB and lateron in the MES where they are employed now.
13. We deem it proper now to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Savitri relied upon by the Tribunal for denying the claim of the employee. That was a case where the concerned employee had joined the office of Rehabilitation and Reclamation Organisation in February, 1987. They became surplus in their organisation and as per the provision contained in the Central Civil Services (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990, they were appointed in the All India Radio on different dates. In drawing up the seniority list of the employees in the All India Radio, as their post services were not taken into account, their experience in the parent organisation was not taken as the requisite experience for promotion in the All India Radio. The concerned employees approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which allowed their Original Applications and held that the past services rendered in the parent organization would count for the purpose of seniority as well as experience. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was challenged before the Supreme Court. In paragraph 10 of the report, the Supreme Court held thus:
Coming now to the question whether the said past services can be counted as experience for promotion, it appears that under Recruitment Rules for various posts in the All India Radio called All India Radio (Class III Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules') as amended from time to time the post of Head Clerk is filled up by promotion to the extent of 50% from amongst the Clerk Grade H/Clerk Grade I/Stenographer with a mini- . mum of five years of service in the grades on the basis of a qualifying departmental examination and the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum- fitness. In that view of the matter, since the past services of redeployed surplus employee cannot be counted for his seniority in the new organisation, equally the past experience also would not count as the so-called past service rendered will not be service in the grade. Similarly, for promotion to Clerk Grade I which is made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness from -amongst the Clerks Grade II five years of service in the grade is required for being considered for promotion. Obviously, therefore, an employee should have Five years of experience in Clerk Grade II of the All India Radio after being redeployed under the Rules in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly in error in directing that the past services of the employees should be counted for granting them the benefit of seniority and experience for promotion in the All India Radio. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in Original Application Nos. 160, 161 and 163 of 1993 are set aside and those Oas are dismissed and these appeals are allowed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
14. In the light of the provisions contained in the All India Radio (Class III posts) Recruitment Rules, 1964, it was held that the past service of redeployed surplus employee cannot be counted for the seniority in the new organisation. It was also held in the back-drop of the Rules of 1964 that the past experience also would not count as the so called past service rendered would not be service in the grade.
15. The case in hand is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Superintending Engineer and Ors. v. A. Sankariah . In that case, the concerned employee was appointed as Junior Engineer in Dandakarnya Development Authority on 30th May, 1980 in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700. The concerned employee was declared surplus in the said project. With a view to mitigate the hardship, a scheme for redeployment of surplus staff was formulated by the Government of India to provide facility for redeployment/alternative placement in other government offices where suitable vacancies exist. As per the said scheme, the surplus staff was treated as fresh entrants in the new office for the purpose of seniority and seniority-based matters in that office. On the basis of the said scheme, the concerned employee was offered an appointment in CPWD as Junior Engineer which he joined on 19th August, 1988. The Directorate General of Works, Central Public Works Department vide Office Memorandum dated 27th March, 1991 took a decision that with effect from 1st January, 1986, the Junior Engineers (Civil and Electrical) and the Section Officers (Horticulture) of CPWD on their completion of five years' service in the entry grade pay scale (pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 425-15-500-EB-15-500-20-700) and then revised to Rs. 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 may be placed in the higher grade pay scale of Rs. 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 subject to the rejection of unfit and vigilance clearance by the DPC. The Directorate General of Works by subsequent clarificatory Office Memorandum clarified that the Junior Engineers redeployed in CPWD shall not be entitled to take the benefit of past service for getting the benefit of two higher pay scales. The concerned employee challenged the action of the government by filing OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal granted the relief to the concerned employee. The Government through Superintending Engineer and other functionaries challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the matter us:
10. In O.M. dated 25.2.1966 providing facility for re- deployment/alternative placement of the retrenched employees in other government officers it was specifically mentioned that re- deployment of surplus staff was treated as transfer in public interest for the specific purposes like transfer-TA, joining time, joining time pay, leave and pension, but, for all other intents and purposes, the surplus staff on re-deployment would be treated as a fresh entrant in the service of the new department. The purpose behind this was not to disturb the seniority of the persons who were already working in the equivalent post in that department. This fact is re-enforced by the subsequent O.M. dated 16.8.1991 wherein it is mentioned that the intention behind the policy was that the benefit of past service could not be allowed to re-deployed employees so as not to affect the interest of the employees already senior in the office/organisation in which they are redeployed. O.M. dated 16.8.1991 was issued to clarify that the Junior Engineers redeployed in the CPWD are not entitled to the past service benefit for getting the benefit of two higher pay scales as the same benefit was not admissible to the CPWD Junior Engineers who are senior to them with less than 5/15 years service.
11. If the OM dated 27.3.1991 is understood and interpreted in the manner it has been done by the Tribunal, it would create an anomalous situation. Juniors in service would get higher pay than their seniors. For instance, a person recruited fresh from the open market in the service of CPWD as a Junior Engineer in the year 1987 would get the benefit of higher grade in terms of O.M. dated 27.3.1991 in the year 1992 whereas the re-deployed Junior Engineer who joined the CPWD in the year 1988 and placed junior to the person who joined in the year 1987, would get the benefit of higher scale of pay under the O.M. on the basis of the past service rendered by him earlier to the person senior to him. Precisely to avoid such a situation, in the policy framed for the re-deployment of the surplus staff, it was made clear that the re-deployed staff in the new department would be treated as a fresh entrant and the service rendered by him in the previous department would not be counted towards seniority. Appointment on deployment was to be treated as on transfer only for specified purposes like transfer- TA, joining time, joining time pay, leave and pension only. The Tribunal while interpreting the O.M. dated 27.3.1991 held that respondent's past service in Dandakarnya Development Authority was to be counted for fixation the higher pay scale, without considering the fact that respondent's re-deployment in the CPWD w.e.f. 19.8.1988 was totally a fresh appointment.
12. O.M. dated 27.3.1991 was issued by the Department of CPWD to give the benefit of higher pay-scale/revised pay scale to its Junior Engineers on completion of 5 years of service in CPWD for the entry grade pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 (Pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 425-15-500-EB-15-500-20-700) which could not be given to an employee who was taken on re-deployment in the CPWD who was working in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 425-15-500-EB-15-500-20-700, as they had not completed 5 years of service in the department of CPWD. The benefit of revised pay scale could be given only on completion of 5 years of service in the CPWD in the entry grade pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-1800-EB-50- 2300. Respondent could not be given for the benefit of working in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 425-15-500-EB-15-500-20-700 in his previous department. The emphasis in the O.M. was for the service of 5 years rendered in the CPWD and not for working in a particular grade in his service career, as has been understood by the Tribunal. Tribunal has proceeded as if this benefit was given to a person who had rendered service in a particular grade in his service career including some other department. In our opinion, in the O.M. the emphasis was to give benefit to the Junior Engineers working in the CPWD of a higher grade on their completion of 5 years of service. The respondent was to be treated as a fresh entrant and the benefit of the O.M. dated 27.3.1991 could be given to him on completion of 5 years of service in CPWD from the date of his joining the CPWD.
13. On re-deployment the respondent joined the service in the CPWD as Junior Engineer on 19.8.1988 as a fresh entrant and in the offer of appointment dated 11.8.1988 it was clearly stipulated that his re-deployment in the CPWD will not get the benefit of his past service in Dandakarnya Development Authority and his seniority in CPWD will be reckoned from the date of his actual joining the CPWD as Junior Engineer. He had accepted this offer and joined the Junior Engineer in terms of letter of re- deployment in the CPWD. In case the interpretation put by the. Tribunal is accepted the very purpose of putting the term mentioned in the letter of appointment that on re-deployment the employee would not get the benefit of his past service would be nullified. This would go against the express condition contained in the policy as well as the letter of appointment to the respondent. It was not an appointment by was of transfer as has been , understood by the Tribunal. It was a fresh appointment for all intents and purposes but in order to give certain specified benefits like transfer-TA, joining time, joining time pay, leave and pension the re-deployment was treated as transfer in public interest and not for any other purpose.
14. Since the respondent had not completed 5 years of service in CPWD in terms of O.M. dated 27.3.1991 he could not claim the benefit of O.M. dated 27.3.1991 from the date he joined the CPWD. He could claim the benefit only after completion of 5 years of service in the CPWD. It has to be appreciated that re-deployment of the respondent in the CPWD was only with a view to mitigate the hardship caused to him by his retrenchment from service in Dandakarnya Development Authority project. It was to protect his retrenchment from service. As per the terms of the policy and the letter of appointment, his re-deployment in the CPWD was to be treated as a fresh employment. His past service rendered in Dandakarnya Development Authority could not be counted for extending the benefit of O.M. dated 27.3.1991.
16. Thus, the Supreme Court specifically and categorically held that the past service in the parent organisation could not be counted for extending the employee the benefit of higher pay scale.
17. That redeployment of the employee was done under the scheme framed vide Office Memorandum dated 27th February, 1985 is not in dispute. The said scheme (Office Memorandum dated 27th February, 1985) provides thus:
Office Memorandum Subject: Redeployment of surplus staff of BCB (Project) - Clarification regd. their redeployment.
The undersigned is directed to say that consequent on the winding of the BCB a number of its employees belonging to various categories have been declared surplus and taken on the rolls of the Central (Surplus Staff) Cell of this Deptt. These employees were drawing pay in pay scales adopted by the BCB on the basis of those prevailing in the State of Punjab/PSEB and different from those prescribed for the corresponding categories of employees under the Central Govt. It has been decided in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and Internal Finance Division of this Deptt. their pay in the corresponding post of the Central Govt, may be regulated as per the following terms & conditions:
1. During stay on the rolls of the Surplus-Cell, the surplus employees from BCB shall be allowed to draw pay in their own (i.e. BCB) pay scales unless they opt to come over to the normal pattern of Central Govt. pay scales. Those who opt for Central pay scales shall not be allowed to revert to the BCB pay scales either during stay in the surplus Cell for on their redeployment in other Central Govt. Departments.
2. Those opting to retain their BCB scales of pay during stay on surplus cell rolls shall be paid DA (including DP/Addl. DA/Adhoc DA, if any) as may be admissible to the employees drawing pay in the same scales of pay in the BCB at the relevant time, or if there is no such employee in the BCB, to such employees in the Punjab Govt.
3. On redeployment in the Central Deptt. through surplus cell, the redeployment employee who has not already exercised option to cover over to the Central Pattern of pay scales, shall be required to exercise an option in favour of being allowed either (a) to continue to draw pay in his existing BCB scale of pay as personal to him, or (b) draw pay in the pay scale attached to the posts in which he is redeployed.
4. The payment of DA including D.P. ADA, Adhoc DA, interim DA etc. to those who opt to draw pay in the BCB scale of pay allowed as personal to them, shall be regulated as per the provision of Sub-para (2) above.
The facility to draw, pay in the BCB scale of pay on a personal basis shall be available to a surplus employee of the BCB.
(a) during stay on rolls of surplus cell, if so elected by him as per Sub-para (2) above.
(b) In the case of those who elect to draw pay in BCB scale of pay under sub para (3) above.
(i) till the employee concerned holds the post: to which he has been appointed on redeployment through the surplus cell of this deptt. and,
(ii) till the date of enforcement of the revised pay scales for the posts, in which he is redeployed, consequent on the recommendations of the truth pay commission.
5. On appointment to a post other than those in which the BCB employees is allowed the facility to carry the BCB scale of pay as personal to him, whether by way of promotion or on transfer, the redeployed employee: concerned shall draw pay in the new post only in the scale attached to that post.
6. The facility to carry the BCB scale of pay as personal extends only to the scale of pay available to the employee at the time of his.transfer to the surplus cell, and not to any revised pay scale which may be allowed by the BCB or the Punjab Govt, as the case may be, to their employees holding the same posts, lateron, whether retrospectively or otherwise.
7. A redeployed (former BCB) employee who has opted to draw pay in the BCB scale of pay, may at any time exercise option in favour of drawing pay in the scale of pay attached to the post held by him. The option once exercised shall be final and shall not be reversible.
8. The pay of the employee who opts to come over to the Central pattern of pay scales, shall be fixed as follows:- (a) if the option is exercised while staying on surplus cell rolls, in the scale of pay determined as on 'corresponding pay scale' for the purpose of his redeployment and indicated in the orders of his take-over by the surplus cell of the DPAR, and (b) if the option is exercised after his redeployment, in the scale of pay attached to the post in which he is redeployed through the surplus cell.
9. The pay of an employee covered by sub para (7) above in the central pay scale shall be fixed in the following manner:
(i) If there is a stage in the central scale, equivalent to the stage at which he is drawing pay in the BCB scale of pay his pay shall be fixed at that stage.
(ii) If there is no such stage available in the central pay scale his pay shall be fixed at the stage next belong the difference being allowed as personal pay which would be adjustable in further rises of his pay in the central pay scale allowed to him.
(iii) If the pay currently being drawn by him in the BCB scale of pay is higher than the maximum of the corresponding central pay scale/pay scale of the post in which he is redeployed as the case may be his pay shall be fixed at the maximum of the central pay scale in question, the difference being allowed as personal pay.
(iv) The pay once fixed in the central pay scale shall be final and shall not be subject to readjustment later on account of rises in pay/employments which would have been admissible to the employee concerned if he had continued to draw pay in the BCB scale of pay. All the further rises in pay/additions to pay by way of periodical increments/allowances etc. shall be based on the central pay scale and be admissible on the same terms and conditions as applicable to the other central Govt. employees holding the same post in the same central pay scale.
10. The grant of various allowances, after redeployment, shall be regulated as per the rules in force in the Deptt. and in respect of the post in which redeployment is arranged.
11. The admissibility of the various allowances (other than DA being allowed i.e. the BCB) during the stay on the rolls of surplus cell, shall be regulated as per instructions which will be issued separately.
18. It would be, thus, seen that on redeployment in the central department through surplus cell, the redeployed employee was to opt either to continue to draw pay in the existing Beas Construction Board scale of pay or draw pay in the pay scale attached to the post to which he was redeployed.
19. It was pursuant to the aforesaid scheme/Office Memorandum dated 27th February, 1985 that the employee was offered appointment of Ty. Superintendent E/M Grade II in MES in the pay scale of Rs. 425- 15-500-EB-15-560-20-700 per month plus usual allowances admissible to the Government servants. The said pay scale was revised to Rs. 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300. The offer letter of appointment mentions in unequivocal terms that it is subject to the conditions laid down in the office memorandum dated 27th February, 1985. The employee was asked to exercise dated 27th February, 1985. The employee was asked to exercise, his option regarding his pay and allowance on his absorption in MES in terms of the scheme dated 27th February, 1985. Nothing has been shown by the petitioner that he exercised the option to continue to draw pay in existing Beas Project Scale of pay. Obviously, therefore, the employee was bound by the offer of appointment and, thus, entitled to entry grade pay scale i.e. 425-15-500-EB-15-560-20-700 and there is no question of his being given the higher pay scale of 1640-2900 before completion of five years in the scale of Rs. 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300.
20. Though the Tribunal relied upon the provisions of Central Civil Services (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 which provided that the services of the redeployed staff cannot be counted for seniority in the new organisation, in our considered view, the Rules of 1990 would not be strictly applicable since the redeployment of the petitioner was done in the year 1985.
21. Our attention was drawn by the counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 to the Civilian Personnel Routine Orders, Particularly CRB0 11(Reference CPRO 73/73) which provides that no benefit of past service is being given to the surplus staff adjusted in other Corps/Service/Units for purpose of fixation of seniority in the grade in which they are adjusted.
(24). CPRO 11 (reference CPRO 73/73) provides thus:
CPRO 11 General principles for determining seniority of various categories of persons employed in central services. Reference CPRO 73/73.
2. In accordance with the revised principles of seniority, no benefit of past service is given to the surplus staff adjusted in other Corps/ Service/Units for purpose of fixation of seniority in the grade in which, they are adjusted. Their seniority on (heir adjustment in new appointments will be determined in accordance with their date of joining the new unit on their adjustment. It has now been decided that when two or more surplus persons of an office are rendered surplus on different dates for absorption in the same receiving unit, their inter seniority as it existed in the office in which they worked before being rendered surplus should be maintained in the grade in which they are absorbed in the new organisation provided that no direct recruit has been selected for appointment to that grade in between these dates.
3. There have also been some doubts about the applicability of the revised principles of seniority in respect of individuals adjusted under surpluses and deficiencies scheme and transferred on compassionate grounds. Revised principles of seniority are applicable wef 1 Jul. 73. In view of this, the seniority of locally controlled staff, rendered surplus and adjusted or transferred on compassionate grounds, prior to 1 Jul 73 will be determined in accordance with Al 241/50. Seniority of the individuals adjusted or transferred on compassionate grounds on or after 1 Jul 73 will be determined in accordance with the revised principles of seniority. In other words those adjusted/transferred on or after 1 Jul 73 will not get the benefit of their previous service on . their reporting to the new units.
22. In view thereof, it can safely be held that the petitioner cannot claim benefit of the service rendered by him in the Beas Project in respect of higher pay scales. In other words, the service rendered by the petitioner in Beas Project cannot be counted for eligibility in respect of higher pay scales.
23. In what we have said above, the decision of the Tribunal dated 22nd February, 2000 does not call for any interference. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.