WP/7221/2003 of SECY. METROPLOTAN CRIMINAL COURTS EMPLOY Vs REGR (ADMN) HIGH COURT OF AP. HYD AND3 ORS on 31 December 2007

ORAL ORDER:

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao)

This writ petition has been instituted by theMetropolitan Criminal Courts Employees Associationseeking a declaration that the action of the 3[rd]respondent-Pay and Accounts Officer in returning the paybills forwarded to him by the Metropolitan SessionsJudge, Hyderabad, fixing the pay of some of theemployees working in his Unit, as bad.

The grievance nurtured is that the posts of Readers,Examiners, Copyists, Steno-typists and L.D. Clerks,which are all included in the Judicial Ministerial Service,were assigned different scales of pay in the revisedscales of pay undertaken by the State Government in theyears 1993 and 1998 and, consequently, they weredenied the benefit of computing the combined length ofservice rendered in two or three of these posts for thepurposes for pay fixation benefits.

The State Government, apart from periodicallyundertaking revision of the scales of pay of the government servants, has also been putting in placecertain incentives in the form of higher pay scales tooffset the stagnation for long years in the same service. The first of these measures have been brought in by theState Government through their G.O.Ms.No.117, Finance& Planning Department, dated 25-05-1981 introducing‘Automatic Advancement Scheme’ to various categoriesdetailed therein, upon completion of 10 years or 15 yearsof service, as the case may be. Even though theemployee does not get the benefit of promotion to ahigher post, notionally he will be rendered eligible for thebenefit of higher scales of pay. This AutomaticAdvancement Scheme has been suitably refined by theState Government through their orders contained in G.O.(P) No. 2, Finance & Planning Department, dated 04-01-1988, introducing one more tier of alleviation ofstagnation upon completion of 22 years of service. Thisscheme has been further modified by the StateGovernment through their subsequent orders containedin G.O. (P) No.290, Finance & Planning Department,dated 22-07-1993 read with G.O.Ms.No.362, Finance &Planning Department, dated 28-10-1994. As per thelatest revised and modified Automatic AdvancementScheme, upon completion of stagnation for 8 years,Special Grade Scale of pay is assigned, upon completionof 16 years, Special Promotion Post Scale-I is assignedand upon completion of 24 years, Special PromotionPost Scale-II, is assigned. But however, for the purpose of securing these benefits, one is required to complete8/16/24 years in a particular scale. Therefore, therespondent-State has insisted that the scale of payattached to the post held by the employee is the relevantfactor for extending the benefit of AutomaticAdvancement Scheme.

It has to be noticed that under the revised payscales on 1974, posts of Readers, Examiners, Copyists,Steno-typists and L.D.Clerks, have been assigned not auniform scale but two different scales. While Readersand Examiners were assigned the scale of pay orRs.240-420, the others were assigned a slightly betterscale of pay of Rs.250-430. When these scales of payhave been revised in the year 1978, all the posts haveearned a uniform scale of pay of Rs.425-650. Consequently, when the next revision of scales of paywas undertaken in the year 1986, they were all assignedthe common scale of pay of Rs.910-1625. In thesubsequent pay revisions that followed, the posts ofReaders, Examiners and Copyists, have been assignedone uniform scale of pay, while the posts of Typists,Steno-typists and L.D. Clerks have been assigned aslightly higher scale of pay. Therefore, what is sought tobe pointed out by the 3[rd] respondent is that the posts ofReaders, Examiners, Copyists, Steno-typists and L.D.Clerks, are not drawing their pay and allowances in onecommon scale of pay, but in two different scales of pay.

Therefore, the 3[rd] respondent-Pay and Accounts Officerhas raised the following objection on 13-08-2002:- “ Counting the service rendered indifferent posts i.e., Copyists andTypists carrying the same time scalefor appointment to Special GradePost/Spl. Promotion Post is not inaccordance with the Govt., ordersissued in G.O.Ms.No.117, Finance &Planning Department dt.25-5-1981. The intention of the Govt., inintroducing the AutomaticAdvancement scheme is to relieve theStagnation in service/post rendered ina particular post but not in differentposts as claimed by the Department. There are also o orders issued by theGovernment to count the servicerendered in different posts carrying thesame time scale as given in respect ofClass-IV Employees. As such, Govt.,orders are required for counting theservice rendered in different posts forappointment to SGP/SPP.”

The contention of the learned counsel for the writpetitioner is that the nature of duties performed by theaforementioned categories viz., Readers, Examiners,Copyists, Steno-typists and L.D. Clerks are almostidentical and the Unit Officer, namely, the MetropolitanSessions Judge, being aware of the same, has rightlysuggested that the entire length of service rendered bythe individuals either as Reader or Examiner or Copyist,before being promoted as Typist, Steno-typist or L.D.Clerk, should be given credit to for the benefit of fixation of pay under Automatic Advancement Scheme. Further,the learned counsel would place reliance upon theorders passed by the State Government through theirG.O.Ms.No.45, Finance & Planning Department, dated15-02-1993, wherein the service rendered by Attenders,even after their promotion as Record Assistants, isallowed to be tagged on or combinedly reckoned for thepurpose of extending the Automatic AdvancementScheme pay scales, and not extending similar benefit tothe categories of Readers, Examiners and Copyists ofthe Judicial Ministerial Service, is discriminatory and bad.

It is hardly in doubt that the State enjoys theprivilege of fixing the appropriate scale of pay to theirservants. Unless the exercise in this regard is shown aspalpably offensive of the fundamental rights guaranteedby Part-III of the Constitution, the same cannot beinterdicted. If the State Government had considered itappropriate to assign uniform scales of pay to these postsof Readers, Examiners, Copyists, Steno-typists andL.D.Clerks, when they undertook the revisions during1978 and 1986, the same is no guarantee or insulationagainst the future revisions. In the post-1986 revision ofscales of pay, the posts of Typists and L.D. Clerks havebeen assigned a slightly higher scale of pay than theposts of Readers, Examiners and Copyists. Thatdecision is not the subject matter of consideration in thiswrit petition. Therefore, it is evident that the Readers,Examiners and Copyists are not holding the posts, which carry the same scale of pay as that of the L.D. Clerks orTypists, to which posts they are now, in fact, gettingpromoted. In such circumstances, it will be difficult toconstrue that for the purposes of fitment in the higherscales of pay in accordance with the AutomaticAdvancement Scheme, the same should be extended tothe petitioners by computing the service rendered bythem as Readers, Examiners or Copyists along with theservice rendered by them as Typists or L.D. Clerks.

It is no doubt true that the State Government passedorders through their G.O.Ms.No.45, Finance & PlanningDepartment, dated 15-02-1993, permitting the pay ofAttenders, who are fitted into various scales of pay underthe Automatic Advancement Scheme, to be extended thebenefit of fixation of pay under F.R. 22 (a)(1), upon theirpromotion as Record Assistants. A close scrutiny of theorders of the State Government contained inG.O.Ms.No.45, dated 15-02-1993, will disclose that thenormal pay scale assigned to the post of RecordAssistant is less than the pay scale of Special AdhocPromotion Post-I/Special Adhoc Promotion Post-II madeavailable to the Attenders under the AutomaticAdvancement Scheme. Therefore, if an Attender, whogets stagnated for 8/16/24 years in the same grade and inthe same scale, he gets the benefit of the higher payfixation under the Automatic Advancement Scheme and ifhe were to be promoted later onto the next higher post of Record Assistant, he will have to face an unjust andincongruous situation of having to work in a post, whichcarries lesser scale of pay than the one in which he wasdrawing his pay prior to such promotion. Therefore, theState Government ordered in G.O.Ms.No.45, to extendthe benefit of pay fixation for such attenders on promotionas Record Assistants in terms of R.R. 22(a)(1), since,F.R. 22(a)(1) enables the pay of a government servant tobe fitted at a higher slab when he gets promoted to a postcarrying on higher responsibilities. That benefit is whathas been extended through G.O.Ms.No.45. Unfortunately, the petitioners have mistaken the same asan order authorizing the entire length of service renderedin the category of attenders to be tagged on or computedalong with the service rendered in the category of RecordAssistant for the purposes of fitment under the AutomaticAdvancement Scheme, which is not. Hence, there is nomerit in the contention canvassed against the orderpassed by the 3[rd] respondent-Pay and Accounts Officer.

Conclusion

But, however, the learned Metropolitan SessionsJudge has pointed out that the benefit of pay fixation interms of F.R. 22 (a)(1) or F.R. 22(b) has also not beenextended for those employees who were gettingpromoted as Junior Assistants/Typists/Steno-typists fromthe ranks of Readers, Examiners and Copyists. That is aseparate issue, which we have no doubt that the 4[th]respondent-State Government, will appropriately seek to redress.

We hope and trust that the State Government willbestow its attention to this question, which has beenraised and pointed out by the learned MetropolitanSessions Judge and pass orders considered appropriatewithin a maximum period of three months.

With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, buthowever, without costs.

---------------------Bilal Nazki, ACJ

31[st] December 2007mrk

--------------------------------Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J