An employee must formally exercise an option under promotion rules to be eligible for annual increment benefits; failure to do so results in ineligibility for claims post-promotion.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr R Sarmah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr T R Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Mr H K Das, the learned Standing Counsel of the Gauhati High Court, appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court, to challenge the order dated 11.09.2017, whereby the respondent No. 4, vide the said order have refused to grant him the annual increment, to which the petitioner claimed to be entitled to. The question, therefore, arises in the instant proceedings is, as to whether the respondent No. 4 was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on 27.04.2016, whereby the petitioner claimed annual increment w.e.f., 01.07.2013.

3. The facts involved in the instant case is on a very narrow compass. The petitioner, who was working as a Lower Division Assistant (for short, “LDA”), in the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, was promoted to the post of Upper Division Assistant (for short, “UDA”), on 25.04.2013, and the petitioner thereupon, joined the post of the UDA, w.e.f. 02.05.2013. There is no denial to the fact that upon the petitioner joining the establishment on 02.05.2013, in the promotional post, he was allowed to draw the pay of the UDA, with the relevant pay band and grade pay. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not permitted to exercise the option at the time when he joined the post of the UDA to claim the benefits, in terms with Note-I of Rule 11 of the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 (for short, the Rules of 2010).

4. In view of the above facts, the question, therefore, arises, as to whether the petitioner herein, has been deprived of his rights by not allowing him to exercise the option in terms with Note-I of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2010, by the establishment of the Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional Court No. 2.

5. This Court finds it relevant to take note of that the petitioner had submitted a representation, raising the said issue on 27 of April, 2016, stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was not allowed to draw his increment when he was released from the said establishment, nor the petitioner was allowed to drawn the same after his joining in the present service.

6. The Court has also taken note of that after the filing of the writ petition, affidavits have been filed by the respondent Nos. 2 as well as by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, explaining as to why the petitioner has not been granted the annual increment on 1st of July, 2013. At Paragraph-12 of the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, it has been mentioned that Rule 11 (c), Note-II of the Rules of 2010, provides that one who gets promoted between 2nd of January and 30 of June of a particular year, shall get increment on the 1st of July of the next year (1st of July, 2014, in the case of the petitioner). It was mentioned that the petitioner, therefore, was ineligible to get the annual increment from July, 2013. Referring to Rule 11 Note-I, it was mentioned in the affidavit that in case, a Government employee opts to get his pay fixed from the date of the next increment, then on the date of the promotion, pay in the pay band shall to remain unchanged, but grade-pay of the higher post shall be granted. Further, re-fixation will be done on the date he gets his increment, i.e., on 1st day of July, next year, and if he is promoted between 2nd of January and 30th of June, it was also mentioned that on the said date, i.e., on 1st of July, he would be entitled to two increments, i.e., one annual increment and one promotional increment