SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Mad) 4136

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA
J. Kumaraguru & Others
Versus
Union of India & Others
W.P.Nos.23319 and 35783 of 2005
Decided On : 12-12-2007

Advocates:
For the Petitioners:V. Ajaya Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, Syed Mustafa, G.A.

The court clarified that a pay scale upgrade does not necessarily constitute a promotion, especially when there is no change in duties and responsibilities, and when the relevant government order does not indicate a promotion.

Headnote:

Livestock Assistants - Pay Scale Dispute - III Pay Commission - G.O.Ms.No.25, G.O.Ms.No.49 - Livestock Assistants Grade-II, Veterinary Field Assistants - ACP Scheme - Promotion - Financial Upgradation

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Livestock Assistants Grade-II, had their pay scale upgraded to Rs.330-560 and were granted financial upgradations. The respondents later cancelled the second financial upgradation, claiming the initial pay scale upgrade constituted a promotion, thus denying the first financial upgradation. The Tribunal upheld the respondents' contention, leading to the filing of writ petitions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners' pay scale upgrade did not constitute a promotion, as there was no change in their duties and responsibilities. The court also noted that the G.O.Ms.No.25 mentioned the creation of Veterinary Field Assistant posts in lieu of Livestock Assistants Grade-II, without indicating promotion to Livestock Assistants Grade-I. The court further cited relevant case law to support its finding.

Issues: The main issue was whether the pay scale upgrade of Livestock Assistants Grade-II to Rs.330-560 constituted a promotion, thus affecting the eligibility for financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the pay scale upgrade did not amount to a promotion, as there was no change in duties and responsibilities, and the G.O.Ms.No.25 did not indicate promotion to Livestock Assistants Grade-I. The court also cited relevant case law to support its decision.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order and allowing the original applications of the petitioners. No costs were awarded.

Judgment :-

(Elipe Dharma Rao, J.)

All the petitioners joined the services of the respondents 1 and 2 as Livestock Assistants Grade-II on various dates between 1967 and 1980 and as per the III Pay Commission, their pay scale was Rs.260-430. The next avenue of promotion for them is Livestock Assistants Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.330-560. The Livestock Assistants Association of Pondicherry was representing to the Government that their counter-parts in other Union Territories were drawing the pay scale of Rs.330-560 and demanded to implement the same pay scale for them also. It seems, pursuant to the said representation of the Livestock Assistants Association of Pondicherry, a meeting was held between the Livestock Assistants Association and the Secretary to the Government of Pondicherry, Local Administration Department on 15. 1981 and pursuant to such meeting, the Government of Pondicherry, has issued G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 22. 1982, creating seventy posts of Veterinary Field Assistants in lieu of the then existing Livestock Assistants Grade-II Post. Further, the post of Livestock Assistant Grade-I which was in existence then was also re-designated as Veterinary Field Assistant, as per G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 24. 1982. Thereafter, the pay scales of the petitioners were re-fixed in the time scale of Rs.330-560 and thereafter as per the Assured Career Plan, for the petitioners who have completed 12 years of service, one financial upgradation was granted and for the petitioners who have completed 24 years of service, two financial upgradations were granted. Thereafter, by the impugned orders, the respondents have cancelled the second financial upgradation granted to the petitioners on the ground that the placement of the petitioners in the higher pay scale of Rs.330-560 is treated as promotion and so the 12 years of service has to be counted from the date of placement in the higher pay scale namely 22. 1982.

2. These individual orders, issued by the respondents to all the petitioners, were challenged by them before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, accepting the contention of the respondents that since the petitioners have already enjoyed promotion, they are not entitled for the first financial upgradation, has dismissed the Original Applications. Aggrieved, these two writ petitions are filed by the applicants before the Tribunal.

3. The only question that arises for consideration in these two writ petitions is whether the upgradation of the post of Veterinary Field Assistant shall be construed as promotion so as to deny the first financial upgradation to the petitioners?

4. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioners were working as Livestock Assistants Grade-II, the pay scale of which, as per the III Pay Commission, was Rs.260-340 and adhering to the request made by the Livestock Assistants Association, Pondicherry, the Government of Pondicherry has issued G.O.Ms.No.25, Development Department, dated 22. 1982 creating seventy posts in the grade of Veterinary Field Assistants in lieu of the Livestock Assistants Grade-II. Thereafter, even the post of Livestock Assistants Grade-I carrying the pay scale of Rs.330-560, which was the promotional avenue for the Livestock Assistants Grade-II, was also re-designated as Veterinary Field Assistant, as per G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 24. 1982. It is therefore, now contended on the part of the respondents that since the pay scales of the petitioners was fixed in the promotional category of Livestock Assistants Grade-I carrying the pay scale of Rs.330-560 and thus the petitioners have enjoyed the promotion, they are not at all eligible for the first financial upgradation and thus they would justify the impugned orders issued by them. It is also contended on the part of the respondents that the Accountant General Audit has pointed out the erroneous grant of financial upgradation under ACP scheme to one N.Muthusamy, Livestock Supervisor and also instructed to re-fix the pay and to recover the







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top