Back
1996 Supreme(AP) 634
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY, V.BHASKARA RAO
T.Sridhar - Appellant
Versus
A.P.State Electricity Board, hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 07-19-96
The service rendered by deputationists cannot be counted for promotion after their absorption into the regular service, unless there is a specific provision to that effect in the terms and conditions of absorption.
Headnote:
SERVICE LAW - PROMOTION - ABSORPTION OF DEPUTATIONISTS - SERVICE RENDERED BY DEPUTATIONISTS - WHETHER CAN BE COUNTED FOR PROMOTION - TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ABSORPTION - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were regularly promoted employees to the post of Additional Assistant Engineers in the Respondent Board, challenged the promotion of the unofficial respondents, who were deputationists from the Irrigation Department, to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers, arguing that their experience as deputationists could not be counted for promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the terms and conditions of absorption of the unofficial respondents were very specific and conclusively determined their conditions of service, and that the services rendered by them on deputation could not be counted for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer.
Issues: Whether the service rendered by deputationists can be counted for promotion after their absorption into the regular service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the terms and conditions of absorption of the unofficial respondents, which stipulated that their seniority would be fixed below the juniormost regular Additional Assistant Engineer of the Board and that their service rendered in the Government would count only for terminal and other benefits, as meaning that the unofficial respondents could not claim better benefits and advantages than those fixed under the memo.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the learned single Judge and declared the promotion of unofficial respondents as illegal and invalid, but allowed the promotions of the unofficial respondents already made as on the date of the filing of the Writ Petitions to continue.
( 1 ) THE Writ Appeals are directed against the common orders of the learned single Judge dated 1-3-1995 in W. P. Nos. 10195/1991 and 2930/1992.
( 2 ) THE Appellants are the Writ Petitioners. The petitioners challenged the proceedings of the Board in B. P. Ms. No. 223, dated 3-8-1991 promoting the unofficial Respondents to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil) as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 and for consequential direction to the respondent Board to promote them as Assistant Executive Engineers by relaxing the requirement of service experience.
( 3 ) THE petitioners were initially appointed as Draftsmen in the Board service and their services were regularised. The contesting Respondents were appointed as Additional Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the Irrigation department of Government of Andhra Pradesh and they were sent on deputation to the Board. The petitioners as well as the contesting Respondents were possessing the educational qualifications of Diploma in Engineering. The unofficial Respondents have been making representation to the Board to absorb them in the Board services. Therefore after considering the matter, the Board issued proceedings in B. P. Ms. No. 1352, dated 28-12-1989 and the similar proceedings were also issued absorbing some more similarly placed persons subsequently. The grievance of the petitioners is that by virtue of the orders of the absorption issued by the Board, all the unofficial Respondents who were working in the Board on deputation are placed below the petitioners in the seniority list of Additional Assistant Engineers. But, yet ignoring the seniority of the petitioners, the unofficial respondents have been illegally promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers by proceedings dated 3-8-1991. The said proceedings are assailed by the Writ Petitioners.
( 4 ) THE matter was resisted by the Board as well as the unofficial respondents, The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions, against which the present Writ Appeals are filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants is that the unofficial respondents cannot be recognised as employees of the Electricity Board till such time they are absorbed in the services of the Board and that their seniority has to be reckoned only from the date of their absorption and not from the date they were holding the post in the government. He draws our attention to the orders issued by the Board in b. P. Ms. No. 1352, dated 28-12-1989 wherein 40 deputationists were appointed. Similarly, in B. P. Ms. No. 484, dated 11-2-1991,34 employees were absorbed.
( 5 ) THE learned Counsel also submits that the very recitals in the Board s memo dated 12-8-1989 establish that the unofficial respondents themselves asked for absorption and the Board has considered their case subject to giving options. Therefore, when once the option is given to become junior to the last regularly promoted Additional Assistant Engineer of the Board, it would not be proper to treat them as Seniors when the question of promotion comes up for consideration. Further in the memo, it is clearly stated that the services rendered by them in the Government shall count only for terminal and other benefits in the A. P. State Electricity Board, but not the benefit of seniority for the purpose of promotion.
( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for unofficial Respondents submits that they have been working in the Board on deputation for several years and that they are Additional Assistant Engineers in their parent department and therefore once on their absorption in the Board the service rendered by them as Additional Assistant Engineers in the parent department or on deputation, will have to be taken into account for the purpose of promotion. Hence, he submits that the order of the learned single Judge is quite legal and valid and the same cannot be assailed in the Writ Appeal.
( 7 ) FOR proper appreciation of the case, it is
