Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench dated 7.3.1995 in OA No. 755/90. The appellants, who were Data Processing Assistants, had been promoted to Data Processing Supervisors. When the posts were re-designated and classified as per the then policy, the appellants were placed in Data Processing Assistants Grade 'A' in the pay scale of Rs.1600-2600, which was an entry grade. The appellants contended that having been promoted as Supervisors, placing them in Grade 'A' was unjust and they should have been fitted into Grade 'B', a promotional grade in the scale of Rs.2000-3300. They also placed a letter dated May 15, 1996 from the Ministry of Planning and Programme Implementation, which directed reconsideration in view of earlier directions dated July 2, 1990. On August 12, 1996, the Supreme Court directed the appellants to produce their orders of promotion and scales of pay. After production of records, the Court on September 2, 1996 directed the respondents to take necessary steps and posted the matter after three months. When the matter came up on December 9, 1996, no affidavit had been filed by the officer concerned showing what steps were taken. Senior counsel for the respondents sought further three months' time to consult the Law Department and Finance Department. The Court declined to extend time, observing that the respondents had not shown any progress or steps taken. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal order, ordered the Original Application, and directed the respondents to fit the appellants in Grade 'B' Data Processing Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3300 with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Scale Fitment - Entitlement to Promotional Grade After Re-Designation - Not Mentioned - Appellants promoted from Data Processing Assistants to Data Processing Supervisors were placed in Data Processing Assistants Grade 'A' entry scale Rs.1600-2600 instead of Grade 'B' promotional scale Rs.2000-3300 upon re-designation. Respondents failed to file affidavit or show progress despite Supreme Court directions and a government letter dated May 15, 1996 directing reconsideration. Held that appeal was allowed, Tribunal order set aside, and respondents directed to fit appellants in Grade 'B' with all consequential benefits. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether appellants promoted as Data Processing Supervisors were entitled to be fitted into Grade 'B' Data Processing Assistant promotional pay scale instead of Grade 'A' entry grade pay scale after re-designation; and whether respondents' failure to comply with court directions warranted allowing the appeal.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, and ordered the Original Application. The respondents were directed to fit the appellants in Grade 'B' Data Processing Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3300 with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs was made.
Law Points
- Pay scale fitment
- re-designation
- promotional grade entitlement
- consequential benefits
- non-compliance with court directions
- Central Administrative Tribunal order set aside
Case Details
1996 LawText (SC) (12) 90
K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati
Hari Shamrao Nimje & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Service matter dispute over fitment in pay scale after re-designation of posts, before the Supreme Court in appeal against a Central Administrative Tribunal order.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought fitment in Grade 'B' Data Processing Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3300 instead of Grade 'A' entry grade pay scale of Rs.1600-2600, with all consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
The appellants were promoted as Data Processing Supervisors but upon re-designation were placed in Data Processing Assistants Grade 'A' (entry grade) rather than Grade 'B' promotional grade, which they considered unjust.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, by order dated 7.3.1995 in OA No. 755/90, had rejected the appellants' claim. The Supreme Court set aside this order.
Issues
Whether the appellants, having been promoted from Data Processing Assistants to Data Processing Supervisors, were entitled to be fitted into Grade 'B' promotional grade pay scale Rs.2000-3300 instead of Grade 'A' entry grade pay scale Rs.1600-2600 after re-designation.
Whether the respondents' failure to file an affidavit and take steps pursuant to Supreme Court directions warranted allowing the appeal.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that having been promoted as Supervisors, placing them into Grade 'A' was unjust and they should have been fitted into Grade 'B' promotional grade; they produced a letter dated May 15, 1996 from the Ministry of Planning and Programme Implementation directing reconsideration.
Respondents sought further three months' time to consult the Law Department and Finance Department but filed no affidavit showing steps taken from the date of the court's order.
Ratio Decidendi
In view of the respondents' failure to show any progress or steps taken in compliance with the Court's directions, and the existing government letter directing reconsideration, the Court had no option but to allow the appeal and grant fitment in Grade 'B' data processing assistant pay scale with consequential benefits.
Judgment Excerpts
Suffice it to state that by order of this Court dated August 12, 1996, this Court directed the appellants to produce their orders of promotion from Data Processing Assistants to Data Processing Supervisors and also their scales of pay.
In view of the fact that the respondents have not shown any progress made or the steps taken, we decline to extend time. We are left with no option but to allow the appeal.
The respondents are directed to fit them in Grade ‘B’ Data Processing Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3300/- with all consequential benefits.
Procedural History
Appellants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in OA No. 755/90; the Tribunal dismissed the claim by order dated 7.3.1995. Appellants filed an appeal by special leave in the Supreme Court. On August 12, 1996, the Supreme Court directed appellants to produce promotion orders and pay scales. On September 2, 1996, the Supreme Court directed respondents to take necessary steps and posted the matter after three months. On December 9, 1996, when the matter came up, no affidavit had been filed by the respondents; they sought further three months' time, which was declined, and the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
