An employee's entitlement to higher pay grades is contingent upon the existence of corresponding regular promotion posts within their institution.

O R D E R

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

The appellant in the writ appeal is the review petitioner. Parties are referred to in this order, as they appear in the writ appeal.

2. The writ appeal was one preferred against the judgment dated 8.7.2016 in W.P.(C) No.22749 of 2014. The appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition.

3. The appellant who was a Lower Division Typist (L.D.Typist) in St.Joseph's College, Devagiri was granted a time bound higher grade on 28.02.1997 on completion of 10 years service and another time bound higher grade on 28.02.2005 on completion of 18 years service. He was granted a third time bound higher grade on 28.02.2010 on completion of 23 years of service. The second time bound higher grade was granted to the appellant in the scale Rs.14,620 – 25,280 and the third time bound higher grade in the scale, Rs.16,180 – 29,180. On 13.08.2014, in terms of Ext.P10 communication, the third respondent has informed the Principal of the college that the appellant was entitled to the second time bound higher grade only in the scale of Rs.13,900 – 24,040 and the third time bound higher grade only in the scale of Rs.14,620 - 25,280, and the grant of the said higher grades in the scales Rs.14,620 - 25,280 and Rs.16,180 – 29,180 to the appellant were irregular.

Ext.P10 was under challenge in the writ petition.

4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the third respondent stating, among others, that it is in the light of clause (6) of the Pay Revision Order namely, G.O.(P) No.145/06/Fin. dated 25.03.2006 that the second time bound higher grade was assigned to the appellant in the scale of pay applicable to Selection Grade Typist and the third time bound higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to Fair Copy Superintendent; that it was clarified by the Government vide letter No.12796/D3/13/H.Edn. dated 16.07.2013 that the said provision would apply only to institutions where the posts of Selection Grade Typist and Fair Copy Superintendent exist; that since the said posts do not exist in St.Joseph's College where the appellant was working, he is not entitled to the time bound higher grades in the scales of pay applicable to Selection Grade Typist and Fair Copy Superintendent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the appellant is entitled to second and third time bound higher grades only in the scale Rs.13,900 – 24,040 and Rs.14,620 – 25,280. The learned Single Judge accepted the said stand of the third respondent and dismissed the writ petition.

5. Clause (6) of G.O.(P) No.145/06/Fin. dated

25.03.2006 provides that if there is a regular promotion post and if the scale of pay of such post is higher than the corresponding time bound higher grade proposed, then the time bound higher grade for such incumbent will be the scale of pay of such regular promotion post, provided he is otherwise qualified for such promotion. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the regular promotion posts, the scales of which have been given to him as second and third time bound higher grades, do not exist in the institution. Nevertheless, the appellant challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge in appeal on the ground that the Government Order referred to above cannot be understood as providing that regular promotion posts should exist in the institution for the purpose of granting higher grades to incumbents like him.

6. The Division Bench which dealt with the appeal, after referring to clause (6) of the Government Order, found that the benefit of the order can be claimed only if there exists regular promotion posts in the institution. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed. Although the appellant thereupon preferred an application seeking review of the judgment in the writ appeal, the said review petition was also dismissed. The appellant challenged the decisions before the Apex Court in S.L.P.Nos.18962-18965 of 2017 and the said Special Leave Petitions were disposed of granting liberty to the appellant to seek review of t