Back
2000(3) Supreme 403
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad)
M. Jagannadha Rao & Ruma Pal, JJ.
Union of India & Anr. -Appellants
versus
R. Sarangapani & Ors. etc. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4247-4249 of 1998
With
C.A. Nos. 4448-56/98, 4330-44/98, 4446-47/98, 4457-64/98, 4199/98, 4445/98, SLP (C) Nos. 15119-21/98, C.A. 4328/98, C.A. Nos. 2583-2585/2000 (Arising out of SLP (C) 15119-21/98 & C.A. No. 2581/2000) (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 346/99
Decided on 15-3-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : N.N. Goswami, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Indira Sawhney, Mr. Anubha Jain, Hemant Sharma, Rajiv Nanda, S.A. Matoo, P. Parameshwaran, Arvind Kumar Sharma, A.P. Chhabra, Harinder Mohan Singh, Subramonium Prasad, Dr. Mahesh Babu M.R., Amlan Kumar Ghosh, Niraj Sharma, H.V.P. Sharma, Ms. Kanupriya Mittal, S.W.A. Qadri, K. Maruthi Rao, Advocates.
Held : The order of the Government deciding the cut off date as implementing the Government O.M. dated 31.3.1992 and the O.M. dated 22.10.90 was entirely valid and that that the applicants were not entitled to the reliefs. (Paras 9)
The applicants who were appointed to the technical posts and the other persons who were appointed to the non-technical posts are not on the same footing. The nature of their jobs was different, the qualifications for appointment was different and the training period was to be longer for the technical staff. It was obviously necessary that those who were to occupy the technical posts should have a longer period of training than those who were to occupy the non-technical posts. The training period for the former was one year while the training period for the latter was only three months. Naturally, the non-technical personnel could therefore be appointed earlier to the technical personnel even if both groups were selected at the same selection. Therefore, in view of the nature of the qualifications and nature of the posts and functions and duties, no equality in the dates of accrual of the increments could ever have been claimed by the technical personnel comparing themselves to the non-technical persons, by invoking Article 14. If, however, the Government thought it fit to bring some sort of equalisation, in the matter of commencement of their increments, it was obviously by way of a sheer concession and was not as a matter of right nor was it to avoid any violation of any principles of equality under Article 14. In fact, the very Official Memorandum of the Government dated 22.10.1990, stated that under the FR 26 read with Rule 9(6)(a)(i) it was only in cases of probationers and apprentices where such appointments were followed by a confirmation that the said period of probation or apprenticeship would be counted for the purpose of scale of pay attached to the posts. This principle would "not" as per the Rules be applicable to the training period. However, during the meetings of the National Council (JCM) it was represented that where the training period was long, as in the case of technical personnel, the disparity would become perpetual. Therefore, it is obvious that the concession was not based on Article 14 nor was it on the basis of any rule but was clearly based only upon the fact that the training period of technical personnel was longer and the disparity would continue perpetually if these groups were selected at the same time. Therefore Government considered initially to bring their increment on par with effect from 1.1.90 and later on it felt that the grievance could be rectified with effect from 1.1.86 as mentioned above, the date of commencement of the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission. It is therefore, clear that the Government decided to extend the benefit in the above said manner, even though parties had no right to the same either under Article 14 or under the Rules and the date was mainly based on the financial burden. It was open to the Government to decide, having regard to the budgetary provision, as to what extent it could go and whether it could fix a cut-off date which was co-terminus with the commencement of the recommendation of the IVth Pay Commission, namely, 1.1.86. On the peculiar facts of this case the said date was perfectly valid because the only consideration was the financial burden of the State and not any principle of equality. (Paras 11 and 12)
JUDGMENT
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted in SLP (C) 345/99.
3. In these batch of appeals, the Union of India and the concerned Department are the appellants. The appeals raise common points. For the sake of convenience we shall take up Civil Appeal Nos. 4247-49/1998, which are the appeals against the judgment dated 8th March, 1995, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A. Nos. 1981/1994 and 1981-82 of 1994. Earlier to this, the said Tribunal rendered a Judgment in O.A. No. 156 of 1992 on 26th March, 1993, taking the same view. The Tribunal had held that Technicians appointed prior to 1.1.1986 would also be entitled to the benefits of the orders passed in terms of the O.M. dated 22.10.1990, as modified in the subsequent orders dated 31.3.1992. In essence, the Tribunal held that for purpose of drawing increments, the Technicians whose period of training was one year, should be on bar with the non-technical persons, whose training period was only three months, so that both the technicians and non-technicians would be drawing the same increment at the same intervals, if they were appointed on the same date.
4. As per the Government O.M. dated 22.10.90 this benefit was given to the technicians and was prospective in operation. It was to be granted only from 1.1.1990. Later on, by the O.M. dated 31.3.1992, this benefit was extended notionally with effect from 1.1.1986. The result was that those technicians who were appointed prior to 1.1.1986 did not get the benefit of these two O.Ms. issued by the Government. When they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, the said Tribunal in its two judgments, one of 1993 and the other of 1995 above mentioned, came to the conclusion that those technicians appointed prior to 1.1.1986 would also get the benefit of these two OMs. This was on the ground that fixation of the date of increment, i.e. 1.1.86 was discriminatory.
5. It appears that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench had taken an opposite view and this led to a Reference to a Full Bench of the same Tribunal, at Madras in O.A. Nos. 1295/94 and 79/95. The judgment therein was delivered on 22.1.1996 and in that judgment the view taken by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal was overruled and the view taken by the Madras Bench of the Tribunal was upheld. The Union of India, therefore, in its appeals filed in this Court against the judgment of the Bangalore Tribunal, has strongly relied upon the subsequent judgment of the Full Bench of the Madras Tribunal, dated 22.1.1996 above referred to, for contending that the view taken by the Full Bench is the correct one and therefore, for the reasons given in that judgment, these appeals must be allowed and the judgment of the Bangalore Tribunal dated 21.2.95 must be set aside.
6. In the Government O.M. dated 22.10.1990, it was stated that, under FR 26, service in a post on a time scale counts for increment in that time scale and that as per FR 9(6)(a)(i), the services as a probationer or apprentice was treated as duty provided that service as such was followed by confirmation. On that basis, the Government of India observed that training period undergone by the government servant "cannot" be treated as duty. However, on a deemed made by the Staff in the National Council, (JCM) it was decided that where training period was long enough as in these cases, such technical personnel were put to perpetual disadvantage vis-a-vis the staff in non-technical jobs who were recruited along with the technical staff in the same scale of pay. Therefore, the Government decided as follows :
".............the National Council (JCM) and it has been decided that in case where a person has been acted for regular appointment and before formally take over charge of the post in which selected person is required to undergo training, training period undergone by the Government servant whether on remuneration of stipend or otherwise may be treated at par for the purpose of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
