The principle of 'satisfactory service' and the criteria fixed for promotion to a higher post, including seniority, record of service, nature of punishments, and pendency of charges, should be followed for advancement to Selection Grade/Special Grade.

1 Being aggrieved by the order, dated 22.10.2002, passed by the Secretary to the Government, Rural Development Department, Chennai, first respondent herein, rejecting the request of the petitioner for advancement to Selection Grade, the petitioner, a retired Block Development Officer, Villivakkam, Tiruvallur District has preferred Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been subsequently transferred to this Court and re-numbered as present writ petition.

2 At the time of filing of the Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, the petitioner was aged 62 years. According to the petitioner, he entered the Department as Junior Assistant in the year 1967, through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and gradually, promoted to the post of Block Development Officer on 19.8.1987 and rendered 12 years of service in the same capacity. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.5.1999. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he had completed 10 years of service in the abovesaid post, the respondents have denied Selection Grade scale of pay in the same post. Though he was due for promotion to the post of Divisional Development Officer in the year 1994-95, the same was denied on the ground that he was facing a charge under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which ended in imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect. Though the petitioner did not pursue his case for promotion, all along, he has requested the respondents to grant Selection Grade scale of pay in the post of Block Development Officer. But, by impugned order, dated 22.10.2002, his request has been rejected.

3 Assailing the correctness of the impugned order, Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect, is a minor punishment and therefore, the respondents ought to have granted Selection Grade scale of pay in the post of Block Development Officer, as there was stagnation in the same scale for more than 10 years.

4. In support of the relief sought for, he also placed reliance on the Government instructions in Letter No. 5381/S/94-7, P & AR, dated 24.2.1995. which states that in cases of persons undergoing punishment of stoppage of increment with or without cumulative effect or of reduction to lower stage in the time scale, they should also be considered for movement to Selection Grade or Special Grade, based on the instructions of the Government and if anyone is considered fit for movement to Selection Grade or Special Grade, monetary value equivalent to the increments be withheld for the unexpired period, or monetary value equivalent to the amount representing the difference between the normal stage and the reduced stage for the unexpired period, as the case may be, shall be recovered. It is his further submission that the abovesaid Government instructions also permitted advancement to Selection Grade or Special Grade, in the case of a person undergoing punishment of reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list, on and from the date on which, the punishment has ended or the immediate junior with reference to the lower rank moves to the Selection Grade or Special Grade, whichever is earlier.

5. Referring to the Government instructions contained in Letter Ms. No. 248 P & AR (S) Department, dated 20.10.1997, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if an officer is imposed of any punishment, other than ‘Censure ‘, within the check period of five years, prior to the crucial date, and if such punishment is imposed for the irregularities/delinquencies, which occurred five years, prior to the date of punishment, the government instructions are to the effect that while considering his case for promotion, the punishment need not be held against him and he therefo