AMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only issue that arises for my consideration in this writ petition is whether or to pay arrear wages/back wages to the petitioner from the date or his notional promotion granted by

(2.) The petitioner herein was initially appointed as a Trainee Officer in the pay-scale of Rs.650.00-1200.00 The said appointment of the petitioner was made in the year 1977. There was another post in the establishment of the respondent, which was called Assistant Research Officer and was in the pay-scale of Rs.550.00-900.00 Somewhere in 1991 the governing body of respondent Assistant Research Officer, carrying the pay-scale of Rs.650.00-1200.00 Consequent upon the institute formulating a combined cadre of research staff, posts of training officer and health instructors were also included and the said posts were redesignated as Assistant Research Officer. Based on the aforesaid decision a seniority list was also prepared. In the said seniority list, the receipt of the said seniority list, the petitioner submitted representations contending, inter alia, that as he was drawing a higher pay scale of Rs.650.00-1200.00 when he joined the respondent No.2 in 1977, which pay scale was higher then that of Assistant Research Officer carrying the pay scale of RS.550.00-900.00, therefore, he shoud be given a higher seniority position. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner was accepted by the respondents and a fresh seniority list was drawn after obtaining advise from the Department of Personnel and Training. The aforesaid advice was received in 1995 and accordingly a fresh seniority list was prepared taking into account the higher pay scale of training officers at the initial circulated on 16/3/1993 requesting for comments within 10 days. However, no representation was received for revising inter-se seniority list based on pay scales. In the said inter-se seniority list, the name of the petitioner was shown at S.No.2. Consequent thereto and on advice received from the Department of Personnel and Training, it was decided that a review DPC should be held. Accordingly, as per representation the petitioner, the matter was again reviewed in consultation with the Ministry and it was decided to hold a review DPC for considering the Officer. As per the recommendations of the review DPC the petitioner was promoted to the post of Research Office with retrospective date w.e.f. 3/11/1992, but it was decided that the financial benefits from the date of holding DPC i.e. 6/3/1996 would be given as per existing rules on the subject. It was stated that the aforesaid notional retrospective deemed promotion was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 3/11/1992 without any financial benefits which would be granted only from the date of actual order of promotion on the basis of the circular of the Department of Personnel and Training, a copy of which is annexed. Particular reference was made to para 18.4-3, which provides, as under :--

(3.) Counsel appealiny for the petitioner , however, submitted that withholding of the monetary benefits for the period from 3/11/1992 to 5/3/1996 is inconsistent with the very concept of the decision of the respondents themselves to give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Research Officer from a retrospective deemed date as there was administrative lapse. It was also submitted by him that the promotion of the pettioner to the post of Research Officer was delayed for no fault of the petitioner and due to administrative lapse of the respondents and that the said promotion was given by the respondents after repeated requests made by the petitioner himself and, therefore , he is entitled to be paid the an ear salary for the aforesaid period.