2003(2) Supreme 781
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar)
Doraiswamy Raju and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Shyama Charan Dash & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Orissa & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1787 of 1997
Decided on 11-3-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : A.T.M. Sampath, Rajiv S. Roy, A.C. Pradhan, Advocate for P.K. Mullick, Advocate/Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 : Radha Shyam Jena, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2 : Raj Kumar Mehta, Ms. M. Sarada and Ms. Suman Kukrety, Advocates
Held : We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side and, in our view, the challenge to the order of the Tribunal rejecting the challenge made by the appellants, do not merit our acceptance. (Para 4)
It is stated by all the learned counsel on either side that the percentage of 25% mentioned in Sub-rule (1) stood altered subsequently as 50% from August, 1995. By a Notification dated 11.6.1986, the State Government, in exercise of its powers under Rule 7(1) of the Rules, declared about 17 categories of posts to be equivalent in status with that of the Industries Promotion Officers/Industrial Supervisors for the purpose of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7. This Notification has not been challenged at any point of time and even in the course of present proceedings. By the impugned amendment which came into force from 24.5.1991, the words, abbreviation and figures, "in grade pay of Rs.500-930/- or as revised from time to time" were ordered to be deleted. Even dehors the reasoning of the Tribunal that those words from the inception qualified only the class of Industrial Supervisors, we are of the view that no genuine or serious objection could be either reasonably or lawfully taken to the move to enable all the Industries Promotion Officers also becoming or rendered eligible for promotion to Class-II posts. So far as Industries Promotion Officers among themselves are concerned, the difference in pay scale among them is due to the differences based on the initial feeder category pay and not due to any intrinsic or basis differences of essential qualifications or the nature of duties and obligations. As long as the IPOs, as a class or category, are rendered eligible even from 1986 and that is not challenged, the differences, if any, existing and based on the scales of pay among them, when resolved to be done away with in the undoubted exercise of its power by the State, as a matter of policy, cannot be legitimately challenged by the appellants merely because due to the enlargement of the horizon of consideration resulting therefrom, the chances of consideration for promotion of Industrial Supervisors become diminished. The reasons, which weighed with the State Government in doing so, are found to be genuine, real and substantive and meant to do substantial justice to all categories or grade of posts equated for purposes of Rule 7 of the Rules. The fact that in different proceedings where claim for identical scales of pay came to be contested by the Government or rejected by the Tribunal, is no justification to countenance the claim of the appellants in these proceedings inasmuch as the criteria to be applied in dealing with such claims are totally different or, at any rate, may be one only among several requirements to be satisfied. Consequently, the challenge on behalf of the appellants has no merit whatsoever and shall stand rejected. For all the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs. (Paras 9 & 10)
JUDGMENT
D. Raju, J.-The above appeal has been filed against the Order dated 26.8.1996 of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, in O.A. No.777/91, whereunder the claim of the appellants before this Court and some others seeking to quash the amendments introduced in 1991, notified on 24.5.1991, which had the consequence of bringing all the Industries Promotion Officers (IPOs) within the zone of consideration for promotion to Class-II service and their further claim to declare that only Rs. 500-930 grade employees alone are eligible for promotion to Class-II post and that those in Rs. 400-750 grade are ineligible to such Class-II promotions, came to be rejected.
2. Prior to coming into force of the Orissa Industries Service Rules, 1985 on 12.9.1985, officers of different categories in the Industries Department under the Directorate of Industries were performing duties and functions of the same nature at different levels in varied fields, appointed to posts with the different nomenclature carrying different scales of pay. Not only there seem to have been periodical revision of scales of pay but changes in their promotional prospects, and their status and position in the hierarchical set up also appears to have been made from time depending upon the exigencies of the situation and necessities of smooth administration on the basis of recommendations of the Pay Commissions or Committees specially constituted for the purpose.
3. The Tribunal below rejected the challenge holding that the impugned notification was not vitiated on account of any mala fide exercise of power and that despite the fact the posts of Sub-Assistant Registrar was a promotional post for Block Level Extension Officers, having regard to the similarity in the nature of their functions, the cadre of IPOs came to be formed by merging and redesignating them both - SAR, Industries and BLEO, Industries as Industries Promotion Officers. Reliance was placed in this regard on the decision of the Government made on 27.5.1980 - a conscious decision to merge them into one as IPOs though with a classification among them as Seniors and Juniors depending upon differences in the scales of their pay which was necessitated for the reason that the merged posts were carrying different scales of pay, initially. Reference also seems to have been made to the subsequent decision on 17.2.1982 to do away with the said difference and the abolition of the selection grade in respect of all cadres of posts in the State, resulting in denial of the only avenue of promotion to IPOs in the grade of Rs. 400-750. Support was drawn by the Tribunal for its conclusions also from the fact that the Government Orders dated 11.6.1986 declaring 17 posts equivalent to that of Industrial Supervisors remained unchallenged and that really the equities stood adjusted in providing promotional opportunities to the cadre of IPOs, irrespective of the scales of pay, on par with Industrial Supervisors.
4. Shri A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, sought to assail the decision of the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the Government could not have attempted to equate unequals by making eligible all grades of IPOs dehors the intrinsic differences in their scales of pay and placing them on par with Industrial Supervisors, who were of higher grade with higher scales of pay. It was also contended that by throwing open the avenues of promotion to Class-II posts to IPOs, who are in large numbers treating them on par with Industrial Supervisors with comparatively small numerical strength, the prospects of promotion of the Industrial Supervisors have been completely denied with slender or even no chances during their tenure of office. In order to highlight the grievance of the appellants, the learned counsel vehemently contended that the experience gained by IPOs in the lower grade of posts cannot be treated on par with those service of Industrial Supervisors in higher grades for purposes of
R.S. Ajara & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors.
State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal & Ors.
S.B. Mathur & Ors. v. Chief Justice of Delhi High Court & Ors.
State of Maharashtra & Anr v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni & Ors.
Union of India & Ors. v. N.Y. Apte & Ors.
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.