Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose in the Registration and Stamps Department of Andhra Pradesh concerning denial of promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. The appellant was appointed as a Junior Assistant in 1978 in Warangal District. Respondents 4 and 5 were juniors to him as Junior Assistants. The appellant was promoted temporarily as Senior Assistant on October 23, 1989, but when his seniors were reverted, he had given place to them. On March 30, 1991, G.O.M.S. No.378 created two posts of Senior Assistant, and respondents 4 and 5 were appointed to those posts while the appellant was not considered. The appellant had been imposed penalties: stoppage of increment for one year from March 1, 1988, and in another enquiry, stoppage of increment for five years from March 1, 1988 till February 28, 1994. He filed O.A. No.7580/92 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal in its order dated August 5, 1994 held that the appellant was not entitled to promotion from the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted, but directed the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant as per the rules and eligibility. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The appellant's counsel contended that stoppage of increment is not a penalty for promotion; under Rule 34(b)(ii) of the A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, promotion is withheld as a penalty only when specifically imposed; and under the A.P. Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, penalty by way of promotion is a distinct punishment, so promotion cannot be denied on that ground. The Supreme Court, while finding the argument prima facie plausible, rejected it. The Court observed that Rule 34(b)(ii) clearly indicates that promotion to non-selection category or grade shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness unless promotion of a member has been withheld as a penalty. Although stoppage of increment does not make the appellant ineligible for consideration for promotion, he is otherwise entitled to be considered in accordance with seniority-cum-fitness. However, since fitness is a consideration and the appellant was undergoing punishment during the relevant period, he was not eligible for consideration for promotion. Consequently, his juniors rightly stole a march over him as Senior Assistants. The Court held that the appellant cannot have any grievance for the period of punishment, but he is entitled to be considered for promotion according to rules after March 1, 1994. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Non-Selection Category - A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 34(b)(ii) - Promotion to non-selection category or grade shall be made in accordance with seniority-cum-fitness unless promotion of a member has been withheld as a penalty. Stoppage of increment is not a penalty withholding promotion, but during the period of punishment the employee cannot be considered fit for promotion and is therefore ineligible. Court held that since the appellant was undergoing punishment of stoppage of increment from 1.3.1988 till 28.2.1994, he could not claim promotion when juniors were promoted in 1991; however, he is entitled to be considered for promotion according to rules after 1.3.1994
Issue of Consideration
Whether stoppage of increment is a penalty that withholds promotion under Rule 34(b)(ii) of the A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, and whether the appellant was eligible for promotion during the period he was undergoing punishment of stoppage of increment when promotion was based on seniority-cum-fitness
Final Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, holding that during the period the appellant was undergoing punishment of stoppage of increment, he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant; however, the appellant is entitled to be considered for promotion according to rules after March 1, 1994. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Promotion to non-selection posts under Rule 34(b)(ii) of A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules is based on seniority-cum-fitness
- stoppage of increment is not a penalty withholding promotion but renders employee not fit for promotion during punishment period
- employee undergoing punishment is ineligible for promotion
- after punishment ends employee entitled to be considered as per rules
