SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, M. R. SHAH, JJ.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India – Appellant
Versus
J.R. William Singh – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2020
Decided On : 24-01-2020
Service Law – Promotion – Pay Scale – Dispute is with respect to promotion under TBPS – Promotion shall be governed as per the promotion scheme only – An employee is entitled to promotion under TBPS only in accordance with scheme and promotion to next higher post is provided under TBPS – In present case, terms and conditions of service of employees of appellant-ICAI were governed by settlements/agreements arrived at from time to time between ICAI and its Employees’ Association – There was no specific order of promotion promoting respondent to post of Section Officer – For some time, respondent was directed to look after work of Diary/Dispatch Section – However, his designation came to be continued as Electrician – Merely because an employee is given a temporary charge to do a particular work of a particular post, it cannot be said that in fact he has been promoted to said post – High Court committed a grave error in directing appellant to promote respondent to post of Section Officer under TBPS – However, at the same time, respondent shall be entitled to same salary of Section Officer for the period during which he worked as a Section Officer either on officiating basis and/or he was given the charge, if not paid so far – Impugned judgment and order passed by Division Bench of High Court directing appellant to promote respondent to post of Assistant and thereafter to post of Section Officer under TBPS as per memorandum of settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991 cannot be sustained and same deserves to be quashed and set aside – Impugned judgment and order passed by Division Bench of High Court quashed and set aside – However, respondent shall be entitled to same salary which was being paid to Section Officers for period during which he worked as a Section Officer either on officiating basis and/or he was given charge and appellant is directed to pay the same, if not paid so far. (Paras 6, 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order dated 05.02.2019 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 245 of 2018, by which Division Bench of High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent herein and has quashed and set aside judgment and order dated 02.04.2018 passed by Single Judge of High Court and consequently has directed appellant herein to grant the respondent herein original appellant pay scale and designation of a Section Officer with effect from 05.03.1993 and the pay scale and designation of an Executive Officer with effect from 05.03.2002 under the Time-Bound Promotion Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the TBPS) on notional basis since the respondent had already superannuated, the original respondent-Institute of Chartered Accountants of India has preferred present appeal. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has also directed the appellant to pay the arrears of salary and emoluments to the respondent, as revised for the aforesaid scales from time to time.
Findings of Court:
There was no specific order of promotion promoting respondent to the post of Section Officer. For some time, respondent was directed to look after the work of Diary/Dispatch Section. However, his designation came to be continued as Electrician. Merely because an employee is given a temporary charge to do a particular work of a particular post, it cannot be said that in fact he has been promoted to the said post.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
M. R. Shah, J.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 245 of 2018, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent herein and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and consequently has directed the appellant herein to grant the respondent hereinoriginal appellant the pay scale and designation of a Section Officer with effect from 05.03.1993 and the pay scale and designation of an Executive Officer with effect from 05.03.2002 under the TimeBound Promotion Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the TBPS) on notional basis since the respondent had already superannuated, the original respondent Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (for short “ICAI”) has preferred the present appeal. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has also directed the appellant to pay the arrears of salary and emoluments to the respondent, as revised for the aforesaid scales from time to time.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as follows:
That the respondent herein was appointed as an ‘Electrician’ on terms and conditions mentioned in the order of appointment/letter dated 26.02.1974. That, by the office memorandum dated 01.05.1976, the respondent was confirmed in the permanent post of ‘Electrician’ with effect from 16.04.1976. That the respondent was also released the increments from time to time. That a settlement dated 10.01.1984 was reached between the appellantInstitute and its Employees’ Association with respect to time bound promotions/change to the next grade. The said settlement was to take effect from 01.01.1984. According to the appellant, the said TBPS was applicable to only two categories of employees, namely, Peons/Chowkidars/Sweepers (Class IV) and LDC to Executive Officers Grade (Class III). In the said settlement, under Clause 1(v) it was further provided that the decision in respect of cases not falling under the two broad categories referred to hereinabove, e.g. Jamadar, Drivers, Gestetner Operators, Electricians, Electrical Foreman and Library Attendant will be taken up by the President. It appears that thereafter and in light of Clause 1(v) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10.01.1984, a decision was taken by the President of the appellant Institute on 25.02.1984, by which it was provided that Jamadar, Drivers, Gestetner Operators, Electricians etc., as mentioned in Clause 1(v) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10.01.1984 shall only be entitled to get the next grade. That thereafter, vide office memorandum dated 13.03.1984, the respondent was informed that his basic pay was fixed at Rs.370/ with effect from 01.01.1984. He was further informed with respect to the next increment. According to the appellant, as per the settlement dated 10.01.1984 and the subsequent decision of the President dated 25.02.1984, the respondent was given the benefit of enhancement in the salary in the next grade. That thereafter vide office memorandum dated 08.07.1986, the appellant informed the respondent that on his completion of 12 years of service on 04.03.1986, his pay scale has been revised from 33010180EB12500EB15560 to the higher scale of 42515500EB1556020700EB25800 with effect from 05.03.1986 and that his basic pay has been fixed at Rs.425/ in that grade. He was also informed with respect to the next increment to fall due on 05.03.1987. It appears that thereafter upon acceptance of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission and in accordance with the option exercised by the respondent, the pay scale of the respondent was revised to Rs.1200 301560EB402040 with retrospective effect from 01.01.1986 and that his pay in that grade was fixed at Rs.1320/. It appears that thereafter in the year 198788,
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.