SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.)
(Record of Proceedings)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Versus
UTTAMRAO RAYALA NIKAM.
SLP (Civil) No. 15168 of 1993 {From the Judgment and Order dated October 1, 1992 of the High Court of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 913 of 1991}, decided on September 10, 1993
Advocates appeared :
V.V. Vaze, Senior Advocate (S.N. Jadav and A.S. Bhasme, Advocates, with him) for the Petitioners; Abhijit Sen Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Constitution of India,1950 - Flagrantly violated and for inexplicable - Order stopping giving increment - SLP was filed against an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Nasik - Order stopping crossing of efficiency bar to reach his scale of pay was quashed - Tribunal found respondent reached efficiency bar - Earlier he was compulsorily retired but by order of court he remained in service - Under rules made by Government, process should be made well in advance and record should be considered and a positive order should be made by competent authority to pass an order stopping giving the increment due to the efficiency bar no order has been passed by the competent authority – Held, SLP was filed needlessly and irresponsibly - SLP is dismissed with the exemplary cost amount should be deducted from personal pay of officer/officers who has/have recommended to file this SLP - Chief Secretary - Government is directed to deduct this amount from personal pay of officer/officers concerned and send it to account of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee - Registry is directed to communicate order to Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee which would correspond with the Chief Secretary for collection of the amount – Ordered accordingly
ORDER
1. This SLP was filed against an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Nasik dated October 1, 1992. The order stopping crossing of efficiency bar to reach his scale of pay Rs 2800 - 4000 was quashed. The Tribunal found that the respondent reached the efficiency bar on October 1, 1982. Earlier he was compulsorily retired but by order of the court he remained in service. Under the rules made by the Government, the process should be made well in advance and record should be considered and a positive order should be made by the competent authority to pass an order stopping giving the increment due to the efficiency bar. Till September 1984, no order has been passed by the competent authority. The Reporting Officer in 1984 found the record of the respondent satisfactory and also recommended for his promotion. Yet the Supervisory Officer appears to have recorded that he cannot be promoted. On that basis, he passed an order on September 14, 1984 stopping the efficiency bar by which time he had already passed three years which he would have been entitled to in the normal course. Rules also postulate that every year they should consider and repeat the exercise. The reason is obvious. The officer due to efforts would improve his efficiency of service to earn his increments. So stoppage of increment is not an all-time and permanent stagnant block for the rest of the career. So wholesome procedure of yearly meticulous exercise of duty was envisaged under the rules but flagrantly violated and for inexplicable reasons the exercise was not done. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly pointed out that stopping of crossing the efficiency bar is arbitrary and we hold it unjust and unfair. Yet the petitioner has chosen with no responsibility in filing the SLP in this Court with no ghost of a chance of success. Therefore, the SLP was filed needlessly and irresponsibly. Accordingly, the SLP is dismissed with the exemplary cost of Rs 5000. This amount should be deducted from the personal pay of the officer/officers who has/have recommended to file this SLP. The Chief Secretary, Maharashtra Government is directed to deduct this amount from the personal pay of the officer/officers concerned and send it to the account of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee which would correspond with the Chief Secretary for collection of the amount.
Court Masters
For Citation : (1994) 2 SCC 166
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
SupremeToday
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.