Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Rajiv Sharma, Sharad Kumar Sharma, JJ.
Smt. Rama Negi – Appellant
Vs.
Union of India & others - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 87, 88, 96, 97 of 2014
Decided On : 22-09-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Thapaliyal, Mr. Alok Mahra, Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Mr. Sidharth Bisht
For the Cantonment Board : Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Ranikhet
For the Respondent: Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Mr. Imran Ali Khan, Ms. Monika Pant, Gopal Ram Arya
The pay-scale has no role in the fixation of seniority for promotion. The date of appointment in the feeding cadre is to be considered for interse seniority for promotion. The pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be a ground for denying promotion.
Headnote:
Seniority - Promotion - Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 - Rule 5-B(8) - The court considered the determination of interse seniority for the promotion to the post of Office Superintendent and held that the pay-scale has no role in the fixation of seniority. The date of appointment in the feeding cadre is to be considered for interse seniority for promotion. The court also found that the pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be a ground for denying promotion.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the determination of interse seniority for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in the Cantonment Board, Ranikhet. The appellant, Gopal Ram Arya, challenged the promotion of Rama Negi, claiming that he should have been granted promotion based on his seniority in the feeding cadre. The court analyzed the service rules and the circumstances of the case to resolve the dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the pay-scale has no role in the fixation of seniority for promotion. It held that the date of appointment in the feeding cadre should be considered for interse seniority. The court also concluded that the pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be a ground for denying promotion.
Issues: The main issue was the mode of determination of interse seniority for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in the Cantonment Board, Ranikhet. The court also addressed the impact of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings on the eligibility for promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established by the court is that the pay-scale has no role in the fixation of seniority for promotion. The date of appointment in the feeding cadre is to be considered for interse seniority for promotion. Additionally, the pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be a ground for denying promotion.
Final Decision: The Special Appeal Nos. 88 and 87 of 2014 filed by Smt. Rama Negi were dismissed, and the judgment dated 25.02.2014 rendered by the learned Single Judge in writ petition nos. 1645 of 2012 and 352 of 2013 was affirmed. All four appeals were dismissed.
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
1. As all the above-mentioned Special Appeals have arisen out of the common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, hence, all four appeals are being taken up together with the consent of the counsel for hearing and are being decided by this common verdict.
2. This is a bunch of Special Appeals, which have been preferred by the appellants of the respective special appeals, whereby they have challenged the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.02.2014, as a result of which the writ petitions filed by Gopal Ram Arya being Writ Petition No.1645 of 2012 (S/S) Gopal Ram vs. Union of India & others and Writ Petition no.352 of 2013 (S/S) Gopal Ram vs. Union of India & others have been decided with the following directions :
“Respondent authorities are directed to permit the petitioner meanwhile to discharge duties of Office Superintendent in officiating capacity. Respondent No.2 shall conclude the departmental proceedings against the petitioner in any case within three months from today. If departmental proceedings pursuant to charge-sheet dated 28.11.2011 is not concluded against the petitioner within three months for no fault on the part of petitioner, charge-sheet shall be deemed to have been revoked and non est. Thereafter denovo exercise in accordance with law shall be undertaken to fill up the post of Office Superintendent by way of promotion. Petitioner, if otherwise is eligible, shall be considered for the promotion.
Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.”
3. Smt. Rama Negi is the appellant in Special Appeal No.87 & 88 of 2014 and Gopal Ram Arya is the respondent no.3 in the aforesaid two appeals. On the other hand, Rama Negi is the respondent no.3 in Special Appeal Nos. 96 & 97 of 2014 and Gopal Ram Arya is respondent no.1 in these two appeals filed by Cantonment Board, Ranikhet. In order to avoid confusion, it would be advisable to term the aggrieved parties as Rama Negi and Gopal Ram Arya. In Writ Petition No. 1645 of 2012 (S/S), Gopal Ram has sought the relief to determine seniority from amongst the feeding cadre i.e. Revenue Superintendent, Accountant and Tax Superintendent, the posts which act as a common feeding cadre for the purposes of promotion to the post of Office Superintendent and after determination of seniority to consider and grant promotion to him (Gopal Ram Arya) on the said post which according to him, he is eligible. In Writ Petition No.352 of 2013 (S/S), Gopal Ram Arya has challenged the Resolution No.8 dated 25.03.2013 by virtue of which Smt. Rama Negi (appellant in Special Appeal no.88 of 2014) has been granted promotion on the post of Office Superintendent. By way of same writ petition, Gopal Ram Arya, simultaneously challenged the Resolution No.14 dated 11.01.2010 whereby promotion has been granted to Smt. Rama Negi to the post of Tax Superintendent.
4. Brief facts leading to the controversy are precisely confined to, as to what would be the mode of determination of interse seniority for the purposes of promotion on the post of Office Superintendent which is exclusively a promotional post with the Cantonment Board, Ranikhet. As per the service rules applicable to the Cantonment Board, and admittedly as per all the parties to the dispute, the post of Office Superintendent is an exclusively promotional post, which is to be filled up by selection from amongst the feeding cadres, i.e. Revenue Superintendent, Accountant & Tax Superintendent. The moot question for our consideration as it appears to us is “as to whether the interse seniority of the employees of Cantonment Board is to be determined on the basis of the higher pay scales in the feeding cadre? And, whether the preference is to be given to a member/employee who was drawing a higher pay scale in the feeding cadre?
5. What has happened in the instant case is that Gopal Ram Arya (petitioner to the writ petitions) while challenging the promotion of Rama Negi (respondent no.
