1996(2) Supreme 614
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., Sujata V. Manohar and K, Venkatasmami JJ.
V. Subba Rao & Ors. -Petitioners
versus
The Secretary to Govt. Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Court of A.P. & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 9268-70/94
Decided on 27-2-1996
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-The petitioners were originally employees of Zilla Praja Parishads of various Districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners are the children of decreased employees of the respondents. In or around December 1983 they were appointed by the respondents on compassionate grounds as Watchmen etc. under the quota for deceased employees children on a consolidated pay. In December 1988 they were appointed as regular employees in the Zilla Praja Parishad on a regular scale of pay. In 1991-1992, they were promoted to the post of Junior Assistants.
2. In April 1993, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners to show-cause why they should not be reverted to their Last Grade Post since five years service in the Last Grade Post is required for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. The petitioners has worked for hardly three years in the Last Grade post. The petitioners submitted their explanation relying upon G.O.Ms. No. 627 of 21st of December, 1983. They contended that for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant the minimum qualifying service was ordinarily three years and in no case less than two years.
3. In view, however, of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1966 as amended by G.O.Ms.No. 589, dated 19th of November 1986, which requires a minimum of five years service in the Last Grade for promotion to the post of the Junior Assistant, the contentions raised by the petitioners were rejected by the respondents by an order dated 29.5.1993 issued by respondent No. 2. The petitioners were reverted to their original post. Being aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed applications before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal challenging their order of reversion. These applications have been dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The present petitions challenge the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.
4. The question is whether the petitioners need to have five years service as Watchmen, Attenders, etc. for appointment as Junior Assistants. The petitioner have placed reliance on G.O.Ms. No. 627 dated 21st of December, 1983. This Government Order is issued by the General Administration Department in connection with certain Special/Ad hoc Rules relating to various State and Sub-ordinate Services. It states that the Speical/Ad hoc Rules relating to State and Subordinate Services a provision is made to the effect that a member of the service should ordinarily put in a period of five years of service in the lower category from which promotion is to be made to the next higher category in the same service or when an appointment is to be made by transfer from any other service (underlining ours). The Government with a view to avoiding administrative difficulties had issued an Ad hoc Rule set out in G.O.Ms. No. 85 dated 12.2.1979 reducing "ordinarily five years in the lower category" to three years of which at least two years service was required to be in the category, class or grade from which promotion was to be made. As the wording of the Rule was considered defective, it was decided to make a fresh Ad hoc Rule in its place. Accordingly a Notification (G.O.Ms.No. 627) was issued on 21.2.1983 framing an Ad hoc Rule superseding the earlier Ad hoc Rule issued in G.O.Ms.No. 85 dated 12th of February, 1979. The new Ad hoc Rule was deemed to have come into force on 12th of February, 1979. It is to the following effect :-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant Special Rules or the Ad hoc rules for the State and Subordinate Service, the minimum period of "Ordinarily five years of service" wherever prescribed in the said Rules for appointment of a member of service form the lower category, class or grade, to the next higher category, class or grade whether such appointment is made either by promotion in the regular line or by recruitment by transfer from any other service, that period shall be reduced to "
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.