BINDRA Vs. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Steno-typist in the month of November, 1985 in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 were appointed in the same capacity, i.e. Steno-typists in the month of April, 1985 and December, 1985, respectively. Petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Junior Scale Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs. 510-880 on 21.5.1990 and petitioners No. 2 and 3 were promoted as Junior Scale Stenographers on 1.6.1990. Petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer on temporary/ad hoc basis on 10.6.1992 in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 on 22.5.1992. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 were promoted to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer purely on temporary/ad hoc basis. Respondent-corporation issued order dated 13.11.1992 vide Annexures A-7 and A-8 whereby orders dated 10.6.1992 and 22.5.1992 were withdrawn. Petitioners approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. Nos. 1446/1992, 1412/1992 and 1447/1992 against the order dated 13.11.1992. Tribunal quashed and set aside the order dated 13.11.1992 on 3.12.1992 with liberty reserved to the respondent-corporation to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. Thereafter, Managing Director of the respondent-corporation issued show-cause notice to the petitioners on 23.12.1992 whereby they were granted fifteen days time to make representation against the same. Petitioners filed replies to the memorandum dated 2.1.1993. The copy of reply filed by petitioner No. 2 dated 2.1.1993 has been placed on record vide Annexure A-9. Respondent-corporation issued order dated 1.1.1998 whereby petitioners were granted promotion on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 1.6.1995, 31.5.1995 and 9.7.1995 instead of 10.6.1992 and 22.5.1992, respectively. Petitioners have assailed office order dated 1.1.1998 by way of present petition.

(2.) Case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that they were eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer as per the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class-I, II, III and IV) Services (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 1984 dated 21.11.1998 (Annexure A-5) (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations' for brevity sake). Precise case of the respondent-corporation is that since petitioners have not put in five years service as Junior Scale Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640, they could not be promoted and granted the higher pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200.

(3.) Mr. Ashwani Sharma has strenuously argued that his clients were fully eligible and qualified to be considered to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer. He then contended that his clients have worked for one year as Stenographer and also four years as Steno-typist. He also contended that petitioners have rightly been promoted on the basis of Regulations and no instructions could be issued contrary to the Regulations. He also contended that the post of Senior Scale Stenographer is a promotional post and his clients have rightly been promoted strictly as per Regulations though on ad hoc/temporary basis on 10.6.1992 and 22.5.1992, respectively. He further contended that it was not necessary for his clients to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 and then Rs. 1500-2640 before being granted pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200. He has relied upon letter dated 27.3.1990 issued by the State Government (Finance Department), which was circulated by the respondent-corporation vide office order No. HO : 9E-181/90 (A) dated 27.8.1990 whereby existing incumbents as on 27.9.1989 were continued to be governed under the pre-existing pattern of pay scales available to them on the date of issue of the orders for promotion in the corporation till they retire. In other words, his submission was that there was neither any illegality nor irregularity in the promotion given to his clients in the year 1992.