IMPORTANT POINT
The post of Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) is an ex-cadre post carrying lower scale of pay than the regular post in the Haryana Veterinary Service Class I.

Headnote:Service Law-Seniority-Appointment as Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) in Haryana Class I Veterinary Service-Appointment letter stating that he will be governed by Haryana Veterinary Service Class I Rules 1930-Appellant submitted representation of inclusion of his name in gradation list-Whether post of Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) is a non veterinary ex-cadre post in Animal Husbandry department-(Yes)-Appellant held not entitled to pay scale attached to a regular post in Haryana Veterinary Service Class I-Post advertised being ex-cadre post, created with a lesser scale of pay-Respondents 2 and 3 appointed later but having been appointed to post carrying higher scale of pay in Haryana Veterinary Class I-They would be treated to be senior to appellant-Haryana Veterinary (Group A) Service Rules, 1995.
       Held : The expression cadre has not been defined in the Statutory Rules for Recruitment, which was in force the date on which the advertisement had been issued on 18.8.86 or the date on which the letter of appointment was issued to the appellant, the Governor having accepted the recommendation of the Haryana Public Service Commission. The relevant Rule at that point of time was the Rule of 1930 which was in force under a Notification of the Punjab Government and that Rule continued to be in force until the State of Haryana framed the Rule in the year 1995. Under 1930 Rules the Veterinary Services were divided into two classes, namely, Punjab Veterinary Service Class I and Punjab Veterinary Service Class II. So far as the class I services are concerned, the same could be filled up either by promotion of selected officers from Class II or by direct appointment or by transfer from other services in England by direct appointment through the High Commissioner for India. The said Rule had been promulgated during the British regime and continued to be in force even after independence. The aforesaid Rule nowhere defined the cadre or indicated as to which post would be borne in the cadre. In the absence of such definition of cadre in the Rule, the normal connotation would apply, and therefore, a cadre would ordinarily mean the strength of a service or a part of the service so determined by the Government constituting the post therein. Usually if the employer decides to create any ex-cadre post which may be necessary for any specialised scheme in keeping with the qualification of the personnel required to man that post, it is so indicated in the order of creation of the post. But unfortunately in the case in hand the relevant document creating the post of Feed and Fodder is not forthcoming. All the same the contemporaneous document which is a letter from the Director to the Secretary to the Government can also be looked into for the purpose of coming to the conclusion whether the post of Feed and Fodder is in the regular Cadre in Haryana Veterinary Service Class I or is an ex-cadre post. The High Court relied upon the aforesaid letter and came to the conclusion that it was an ex-cadre post. Apart from the aforesaid letter the fact that the appointment letter issued in favour of the appellant indicated a lower scale of pay is an internal evidence to suggest that the post was not created in the cadre but was an ex-cadre post and the appellant did accept the said offer and joined the post. In the aforesaid premises, we do not see any infirmity with the ultimate conclusion of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in holding that the post of Feed and Fodder was an ex-cadre post and we affirm the said conclusion. Our aforesaid conclusion is reinforced by the Statutory Rule which has come into existence since 1995, inasmuch as under the aforesaid Haryana Veterinary (Group A) Service Rules, 1995, the post borne in the regular Veterinary Cadre Class I have been indicated in Appendix A and the post of Feed and Fodder has not been included therein. That apart, even in non-veterinary cadre the posts of Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) has been indicated but in a lower scale of pay than other post borne in the regular Class I post. The validity of the aforesaid Rule has not been assailed before us. The very inclusion of the post of Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) which the appellant was holding on the basis of his selection, pursuant to the advertisement issued in the non-veterinary and in a lesser scale of pay under the Statutory Rules re-affirms our earlier conclusion that the post of Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) was an ex-cadre post. (Paras 8 and 9)
       Notwithstanding the advertisement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission indicating that the post of Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) in Haryana Class I Veterinary Service, the appellant would not be entitled to the pay scale attached to a regular post in Haryana Veterinary Service Class I, as the post that was advertised was an ex-cadre post and had been created with a lesser scale of pay. So far as the question of seniority inter se is concerned, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 though appointed later but had been appointed to the post carrying higher scale of pay in Haryana Veterinary Class I and, therefore, they would be treated to be senior to the appellant. That apart, under the Statutory Rule of the year 1995, the veterinary and non-veterinary services having been bifurcated, the question of inter se seniority of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who are in the veterinary service and the appellant who is in the non-veterinary service would not arise.(Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 5117 of 1999.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 7893 of 1993 which stood affirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 739 of 1995 in dismissing the LPA in limini. The question for consideration is whether the appellant can be said to have been appointed to a post in Haryana Veterinary Service Class I, when he was appointed as Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder), on being selected by the Haryana Public Service Commission by order dated 27th April, 1987. The appellants case in brief before the High Court was that on 15.7.83 he was appointed as Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) on ad hoc basis in his own pay scale. While he was so continuing an advertisement was issued on 18.8.1986 for recruitment to a temporary post of Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) in Haryana Veterinary Service Class I in Animal Husbandry Department and the appellant applied for the said post. Ultimately he was selected by the Public Service Commission and the recommendation of the Public Service Commission having been accepted by the Governor he was appointed by direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) in Haryana Veterinary Service Class I in the scale of pay of Rs. 1200-50-1500-60-1860 by order dated 27th April, 1987. The appointment letter unequivocally indicated that he will be governed by Haryana Veterinary Service Class I Rules 1930 and will be on probation for a period of 2 years. On 2.6.1987 the scale of pay of post in Class I Haryana Veterinary Service was revised to Rs. 1400 to 2100 with effect from 1.2.1981 but that revised scale was not given to the appellant for which he had made representation. On 16.5.1988 there had been a further revision of the pay scale in the scale of Rs. 3000 to 4500, but instead of granting the revised pay scale the appellant was given the pay scale of Rs. 1400 to 2100. The appellant made yet another representation but his grievances not having been redressed he filed the Writ Petition which was registered as Civil Writ Petition No. 2728 of 1989. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were appointed on different posts in Class I Haryana Veterinary Service under different schemes on 6.2.1989. When the tentative seniority list was published in the year 1992 of the officers in Class I appellants name was not shown whereas names of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had been shown even though they were junior to the appellant. Appellant again submitted a representation for inclusion of his name in the gradation list and ascribing him his position in the gradation list. The appellant was given a personal hearing but no order having been passed he filed a Writ Petition No. 7893 of 1993, which stood dismissed by judgment dated 31.8.1995, which is the subject matter of challenge. As already stated, the appellant moved the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal but the Division Bench dismissed the same in limini.

3. Before the learned Single Judge the State of Haryana took the stand that the post of Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) is a non-veterinary ex-cadre post in the Animal Husbandry department, and the appellant, who is a graduate in Agricultural Science cannot claim parity with graduates holding Class I post in Haryana Veterinary Service. It was further stated that the post of Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) carried a pay scale lower than that of other posts in the Class I Haryana Veterinary Service and even the appointment letter of the appellant stated so unequivocally and, therefore, the appellant cannot claim the same scale of pay as that of other posts in the Class I Haryana Veterinary Service. So far as the seniority is concerned, it was stated that the post of Feed and Fodder being an ex-cadre post the appellant was not shown in the gradation list and so also cannot claim seniority over respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who from the date of their appointm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 216

IMPORTANT POINTThe post of Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) is an ex-cadre post carrying lower scale of pay than the regular post in the Haryana Veterinary Service Class I.

IMPORTANT POINT
The post of Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) is an ex-cadre post carrying lower scale of pay than the regular post in the Haryana Veterinary Service Class I.