WP/29207/2008 of M. Srinivasa Charyulu, Vs The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, on 29 December 2009

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDYandTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

W.P.No.29207 of 2008

ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy)

The short question, which arises for consideration in this writpetition is:

“Whether the petitioners are entitled to SpecialGrade/Special Promotion Post I/Special Promotion Post IIunder automatic advancement scheme by computing theperiod of service rendered by them asCopyists/Readers/Examiners.”

The 1[st] petitioner, who was appointed as Copyist on 10-03-1983, was subsequently promoted as Junior Assistant on 16-11-1987.The 2[nd] petitioner, who was appointed as Copyist on 01-10-1982, waspromoted as Junior Assistant on 16-07-1985. The 3[rd] petitioner was appointed as Reader on 22-10-1983 and his services were utilized as L.D.C. from 13-03-1984 to 08-07-1984 temporarily and thereafter he was promotedas Junior Assistant on 23-05-1987. The 4[th] petitioner, who wasappointed as Copyist on 01-01-1984, was promoted as Typist on 25-10-1986. The 5[th] petitioner, who was appointed as Copyist on 05-11-1983, was promoted as Typist on 14-04-1988. All the petitioners madea representation for reckoning the services rendered by them asCopyists/Readers/Examiners for the purpose of sanction of SpecialGrade/Special Promotion Post I/Special Promotion Post II underautomatic advancement scheme.

The Government in G.O.Ms.No.117 Finance & Planning (FWP.R.C-I) Department, dated 25-05-1981 introduced a scheme called“automatic advancement scheme”. The scheme inter alia provides allemployees to whom these orders apply and who have completed theprescribed period of service or appointment to special grade posts orspecial temporary promotion posts or special adhoc promotion posts,as the case may be, on the date on which these orders come into forceshall be eligible for appointment to special grade posts/specialtemporary promotion posts/special adhoc promotion posts, as the casemay be, who are continued in the same post for a specific period,namely, every employee after a service of 10 years in a particular scale shall be eligible for the next higher scale,in Schedule-I to the Andhra Pradesh Revised Scales of Pay Rules,1978. For the purpose of computation of 10 years of service referred toin Part I i.e., Special Grade Post all service that counts for increment inthe scale shall be taken into account. Where promotion posts areavailable under normal service rules: a special temporary promotionpost, an employee who completes a period of 15 years in a particularscale as on 31[st] August of each year shall be eligible for promotion tothe next higher post in the regular line of promotion from the post holdby him under the service rules applicable to the post. Those postsshall be called “Special Temporary Promotion Posts”. TheGovernment through its letter No.PAO/Cord.114/89-93, dated 13-05-1993 clarified the position in para 4(vii) of the Government Order.

It is not disputed that the post of Junior Assistant Category-IVis a promotion post from the post of Examiner/Reader of Category-VII/Copyist of Category-VIII. The time scale of pay at the time of initial appointment of the petitioners as Examiner/Reader Category-VII/Copyist Category—VIII and scale of pay of Junior Assistant areidentical and same position continued till 1986, but in the pay revision1993 and 1998 the time scale of post of Junior Assistant is higher thanthat of Examiner/Reader/Copyist.

Arguments

The 1[st] petitioner though given regular promotion as JuniorAssistant on 16-11-1987, he was appointed to the Special GradeScale w.e.f. 01-07-1991 (on completion of 8 years of service asCopyist and L.D.C.) in terms of above G.O. by proceedings dated 18-04-2002. On regular promotion he claims the benefit under FR 22 r/w31 on identical nature of pay scale. The other petitioners 2 to 5 weredenied such a reckoning of their service in the post of Copyist/Readerthough same was the scale of pay on their promotion as JuniorAssistant and they were also not granted the benefit of FR22 r/w 31. Therefore, they made a representation to the Unit Head, MSJ,Hyderabad. The said representation was forwarded to the High Courtthrough the MSJ through his letter dated 24-04-2008 seekingclarification whether the petitioners are entitled to sanction of SpecialGrade Post/Promotion Post I under automatic advancement schemeby computing the entire service in the said category. On placing thematter before the High Court, the Committee of the Honourable Judgesconstituted to look into the matter of A.P. Judicial Ministerial ServiceRules, rejected the request of the petitioners. Accordingly, the HighCourt by its order dated 10-11-2008 vide ROC. No.869/2008-C-6, passed the following order:

“The scheme introduced by the State Government is forrelieving the stagnation of employees. If a Copyist or aReader earns promotion, as per APJMS rules, to the postsof Junior Assistant or Typist, though they carry the same scale of pay, they cannot be treated as to have stagnatedas Copyist or Reader. Hence, the High Court does notconsider that they are entitled to reckon such servicealong with the service of Junior Assistant or Typist andthen claim the pay benefit.”

Questioning the correctness of the same, the present writpetition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contendedthat the then Metropolitan Sessions Judge, through his proceedings inDis.No.2029/MSJ/Hyd/2002 dt.18.04.2002 fixed the pay scale of thefirst petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.117 Finance & Planning (FWPRC-I) Dept., dated 25.05.1991, but the same has not been approvedby this Court. He also contended that since petitioners 2 to 5 have notbeen granted Special Grade Scale on completion of 8 years, they areentitled to fixation of pay as per the Revised Pay Scale. Further, theyare also entitled to the benefit of advance increment on completion of16 years.

On the other hand, Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned StandingCounsel for APHC, contended that the first petitioner, who waspromoted as Junior Assistant on 16-11-1987, was given Special GradeScale w.e.f. 01.07.1991 taking into account the service rendered byhim in both the posts of Copyist and L.D.C, but the same is not correctsince as per Revised Pay Scales in 1993 and 1998, the time scale forthe post of Junior Assistant is higher than that ofExaminer/Reader/Copyist. The same cannot be taken intoconsideration for the purpose of conferring them on Special PromotionPost. He further contended that the Government though clarified thatAmins/Bailiffs/Copyists/ Examiners/Readers and L.D Clerks are

entitled to the benefit of Special Grade Post/Promotional Post bycomputing the entire service in the said category in the revised payscales of 1978/1986/1993, the request of the petitioners for computingthe service rendered in the posts of Copyist/Reader/Examiner for thepurpose of sanction of Special Promotion Posts cannot beconsidered. He further contended that on completion of 8 yearsservice, petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled to be placed in Special GradeScale in the Revised Pay Scale of 1993 and that since there is nostagnation of the petitioners on promoting to the post of JuniorAssistants, they are not entitled to the pay benefit. He also pointed outthat the Government in G.O.(P).No.290 dated 22.07.1993 clarified thaton completion of 8 years, which counts for increment, an employee iseligible to be placed in the Special Grade Scale, in the Revised PayScales of 1993. Further, on completion of 16 years service whichcounts for increments, an employee shall be eligible to be placed inthe scale of the post next above the post held by him which happens tobe the promotion post under the relevant service rules, provided he isfully qualified to be promoted to such promotion post, provided alsothat such a post should belong to the regular line and not outside theregular line. This scale shall be called the “Special Promotion PostScale.” In view of the same, and since there is no stagnation of thepetitioners in the posts of Junior Assistant, they are not entitled to 16years pay benefit.

The scheme relating to creation of Special GradePosts/Special Temporary Promotion Posts/Special Adhoc PromotionPosts issued in G.O.Ms.No.117, dated 25.05.1981 is evolved forrelieving the stagnation of employees in a particular scale so as tomove them to next higher scale, in Schedule-1 to the Andhra Pradesh

A Full Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.16101 of 1989 andbatch held that the posts of Junior Assistant (L.D.C), Typist and Steno-typist, which are in the category of 5 of Division IV of the A.P.JudicialMinisterial Service Rules, 1964 are promotion posts for the personsholding the posts of Examiner, Reader and Copyist in view of thedefinition of “Promotion” contained in Rule 2(1)(o) of the A.P. JudicialMinisterial Service Rules, 1964; that all these posts including the postof Junior Assistant (L.D.C) carry the same time-scale of pay with effectfrom 1-4-1978 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.235 Finance (PRC-I)Department dated 17.09.1979 and that the petitioners therein, who areall members of the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service are governed bythe Fundamental Rules by virtue of Rule 3 of the said Rules. Byinterpreting F.R.22-B, the Full Bench also held that if the post held byan employee previously and the post to which he is promoted, carrythe same time-scale of pay, he will not be entitled to the benefit ofF.R.22-B; that having regard to the fact that the posts of Examiner,Copyist and Reader as well as the promotion post of Junior Assistant(L.D.C) etc., carry the same time-scale of pay with effect from 1.4.1978,the last pay drawn in the posts of Examiner, Reader and Copyist aloneis protected in view of the proviso to F.R.22, which is made applicableby the last proviso to F.R.22-B, and therefore, the impugned letters ofthe first respondent-Government stating that the petitioners are notentitled to the benefit of F.R.22-B of the Fundamental Rules in view ofthe fact that the time-scale of pay attached to the posts are identical,are in accordance with the last proviso to F.R.22-B read with theproviso to F.R.22. The Full Bench after considering various provisionsheld that in view of the identical scale of pay Rs.425-10-455-15-650

attached to the posts of Junior Assistant (LDC), Examiner, Reader andCopyist by virtue of the revised pay scales introduced with effect from1.4.1978, the petitioners, who were promoted subsequent to 1.4.1978are not entitled for the benefits under F.R.22-B, and accordinglydismissed the writ petitions.

It is not in dispute that in the instant case all the petitionershave worked in feeder category and were promoted as JuniorAssistants subsequently. The first petitioner though given regularpromotion as Junior Assistant on 16.11.1987, on completion of 8 yearsservice as Copyist and LDC he was given pay benefit w.e.f.01.07.1991 and petitioners 2 to 5, who are promoted as JuniorAssistants, are also entitled to the benefit of Special Grade Scale oncompletion of 8 years of service on par with the first petitioner. Hence,promotion as per A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 1964 to thepost of Junior Assistant, was carried on the same scale of pay, but from1993 onwards the pay to both the categories i.e.,Copyist/Reader/Examiner and Junior Assistant is not equal. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was stagnation in the samescale. In view of the same, the decision taken by the High Court inrejecting the claim of the petitioners for pay benefit on completion of 16years cannot be found fault with and the same is in accordance withthe scheme introduced by the Government.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of meritsand the same is liable to be dismissed. However, it is brought to thenotice of this Court that petitioners 2 to 5 though are entitled to the paybenefit on par with the first petitioner, the same was not granted to him.The learned Standing Counsel for APHC submitted that petitioners 2to 5 would also be given the pay benefit on completion of 8 years, but not to the pay benefit on completion of 16 years.

Conclusion

Recording the above said submission, the writ petition isdismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________

A.GOPAL REDDY, J.

29-12-2009Murthy/va

________________NOUSHAD ALI, J.