Back
Past Service in Different Cadre Cannot Be Counted for Career Progression:
A Division Bench of the has clarified that past service rendered in a different cadre cannot be automatically counted for career progression benefits under the . The Court dismissed a filed by Dr. Mohammed Shakeel Ansari, an Associate Professor at the , Bengaluru, who sought to have his earlier stint as a Clinical Registrar considered for .
The bench, comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao , affirmed the order of the , which had earlier rejected the petitioner's claim.
The Road from Clinical Registrar to Lecturer
Dr. Ansari joined NIUM as a Clinical Registrar on , and served in that position until . He then successfully applied for the post of Lecturer (Jarahiyat) through a separate recruitment process and was appointed on , reporting for duty two days later. His core grievance was that this appointment was a “” without a break in service, and therefore the seven-plus years he spent as a Clinical Registrar ought to be counted for extending benefits under the DACP Scheme.
When the respondents refused, Dr. Ansari approached the CAT, which dismissed his . The Tribunal held that the posts of Clinical Registrar and Lecturer belong to different cadres with distinct duties and responsibilities, and that the DACP Scheme only permits counting of “regular service” within the relevant cadre.
‘Continuity’ vs ‘Entitlement’: A Crucial Distinction
The High Court thoroughly examined the distinction between and . In a pivotal observation, the Court stated:
“ is distinct from rendered in another cadre for promotional or financial benefits. Unless the governing Rules or the Scheme specifically provide for such reckoning, no such right can be claimed merely because there was no break in service.”
The Court noted that Dr. Ansari had failed to point to any provision in the DACP Scheme or the that mandated counting of service from a different cadre.
Requires Same Cadre
The petitioner also invoked the principle of “,” arguing that junior officers were drawing higher . The Court rejected this contention, emphasizing that comparators must be similarly situated in all material respects.
“The petitioner must establish that the persons sought to be compared are similarly situated in all material particulars, including the cadre, service conditions, nature of duties and responsibilities. In the present case, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the petitioner seeks comparison between different cadres and has also noticed the distinction in the nature of duties.”
The Court further clarified that under the DACP Scheme is governed by the applicable and eligibility criteria. A difference in pay resulting from the operation of the Scheme, rather than , does not violate constitutional guarantees.
Enjoy
The Court also weighed in on the validity of the Office Memorandum dated , which modified the and gave the Scheme effect from . It held that such , implemented on expert recommendations and approved by competent authorities, are beyond the scope of judicial interference unless shown to be arbitrary or blatantly discriminatory.
The High Court further noted that the CAT had correctly distinguished precedents cited by the petitioner from the , as those arose under different statutory provisions where the applicable rules themselves permitted reckoning of earlier service.
Court’s Final Order
Having found no , , or in the Tribunal’s order, the High Court dismissed the and affirmed the CAT’s decision of . All pending were disposed of, and no costs were awarded.
The judgment serves as a clear reminder to government employees that mere does not create an in a different cadre for finaincial upgradation benefits. Unless the governing rules or scheme specifcally provide otherwise, each cadre stands on its own feet.
