M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 17th January, 2006 (Annexure P. 5) passed by Respondent No. 2 whereby the benefit of two increments granted to him vide order dated 15th January, 1991 has been reduced to one increment.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Petitioner joined as Upper Division Clerk in the office of Respondent Board on 31st June, 1974. He was promoted/posted as Assistant Revenue Accountant/Circle Assistant on 19th July, 1985. He was further promoted as Internal Auditor on 6th June, 1995. In view of the time bound promotional scale scheme introduced by Finance Circular No. 17/90 vide order dated 15th January, 1991 (Annexure P. 1), the Petitioner was granted the time bound promotional scale on completion of 16 years service in the Board and accordingly two annual increments were given to him. His pay was fixed in the scale of 1,800 - -3,200. At the time of grant of second promotional scale the Petitioner was posted as Assistant Revenue Accountant with effect from 19th July, 1985 and continued to be the same after the grant of scale. He was not actually promoted to any higher post nor he was assigned any higher responsibility. On 12th May, 2004 (Annexure P.2) the Respondent board passed an order reducing the benefit of two increments granted to the Petitioner vide office order dated 15th June, 1991 to one. Accordingly a consequential order was passed by fixing his pay with effect from 31st May, 1990. The order dated 12th May, 2004 was challenged by the Petitioner in this Court by filing CWP No. 8773 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court on 26th April, 2005. The Division Bench while quashing order dated 12th May, 2004 directed the Respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the Petitioner. The Petitioner made a representation on 5th September, 2005 (Annexure P.4) which has been declined vide order dated 17th January, 2006 (Annexure P.5). The afore -said order is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. The stand taken by the Respondent Board in the written statement is that the Petitioner was already granted first promotion as Assistant Revenue Accountant on 9th July, 1985 and therefore he was not entitled to the first time bound promotional scale. It is further stated that Petitioner completed 16 years of service on 31st May, 1990. The Petitioner was promoted from the post of UDC to that of Assistant Revenue Accountant on 9th July, 1985 in the pay scale of Rs. 620 - - 1,200 which scale was revised to 1,800 - -3,200 with effect from 1st January, 1986. As the next promotion from the post of Assistant Revenue Accountant is to that of Senior Assistant/Internal Auditor having the same pay scale of 1,800 - -3,200 which is equivalent to the post of Assistant Revenue Clerk i.e. the lower post and therefore on completion of 16 years of Service on 31st May, 1990 the Petitioner could not get second promotion. Therefore, according to the instructions dated 3rd September, 1993, the Petitioner was entitled to only one increment whereas due to inadvertence he was granted two increments. The said mistake was rectified vide order dated 12th May, 2004 (Annexure R2).
(3.) WHEN the matter came up for hearing on 9th September, 2008, the following order was passed: During the course of arguments it has transpired that the circular dated 3rd September, 1993 (Annexure R6) has placed reliance on another circular to which reference has been made in para 3. On a close scrutiny, we find that the aforementioned circular is to be applied when an employee is promoted to the next higher post and his pay is to be fixed in that scale. However, in the present case the Petitioner has been promoted from the post of Upper Division Clerk to the post of Assistant Revenue Accountant who started getting the pay scale of 1,800 - -3,200 with effect from 1st January, 1986 which scale, he also becomes entitled to on 31st May, 1990 i.e. after completing 16 years of service. The circular Annexure R6 cannot be applied to the case of the Petitioner as it talks of promotion to the next higher post i.e. promotion to the post which carries pay scale higher than 1,800 - -3,200. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we find that it would be appropriate if we asked the counsel for the Board to find out as to whether, the Board is following the policy of passing such like orders, in all the cases or it is only an individual case. Mr. Sran shall obtain instructions in this regard......;