Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India, by a Division Bench of K. Ramaswamy and Sujata V. Manohar, heard an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 09.12.1994 in C.W.P. No. 435 of 1992. The dispute concerned the claim of the appellant, a former work-charged employee who had been regularised in a lower pay-scale, to parity with work-charged employees under a rationalisation scheme. The appellant was initially appointed as a Store Munshi on 04.10.1971 in the work-charged establishment. He received two promotions, the last being to Store Keeper in the regular cadre on 31.12.1980 in the pay-scale of Rs. 260-430 with effect from 01.01.1981. He was later promoted on 01.01.1986 to the grade of Rs. 330-560. Subsequently, by negotiation with the Union, the pay-scales and promotional avenues of work-charged employees who could not get promotion were rationalised, and by a modified scheme dated 05.09.1988, the respondents adopted a rationalisation scheme and scales of pay. Paragraph (b) of the scheme provided that although appointment to the regular cadre would be effective from the date of such appointment, service rendered in work-charged posts in the same post and scale of pay would count towards inter-se seniority in the regular cadre for the purpose of promotion to the next higher scale of pay, subject to the line of promotion being available. It was not in dispute that the appellant had earlier been promoted on selection and became a regular employee. The work-charged employees who could not become regular employees had the benefit of the rationalisation scheme. However, since the appellant was in a lower scale of pay in the work-charged establishment than was mentioned in the rationalisation scheme, he could not claim the higher scale of pay or promotional post on par with his erstwhile juniors or work-charged employees. The High Court had rightly pointed out that though the appellant was entitled to count his service rendered as a work-charged employee for the purpose of seniority and promotion, as far as grade seniority was concerned, he could not get the same benefit because he was appointed in the grade of Rs. 260-350 on 01.09.1973 and regularised with effect from 01.01.1981 in the scale of Rs. 260-430, which was lower than the rationalised pay-scale. The Supreme Court found no illegality in the High Court's order. The appellant argued that para (b) of the rationalisation scheme entitled him to count work-charged service for seniority and promotion, and therefore he should receive higher scale of pay or promotional post on par with work-charged employees. The respondents contended that the appellant, having been regularised in a lower pay-scale than the rationalised scale, could not claim parity with work-charged employees, and the scheme benefited only those work-charged employees who could not become regular employees. The Court accepted the respondents' submission and held that the appellant could not claim the higher scale or promotional post. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Pay Rationalisation - Work-Charged Employees - Not mentioned - The appellant, initially appointed as Store Munshi in a work-charged establishment on 04.10.1971 and later regularised as Store Keeper on 31.12.1980 in pay-scale Rs.260-430, claimed parity with work-charged employees under the rationalisation scheme dated 05.09.1988. The Court held that though under para (b) of the scheme the appellant is entitled to count work-charged service for seniority and promotion, he cannot claim higher scale of pay or promotional post on par with erstwhile juniors because he was regularised in a lower pay-scale than the rationalised scale. Held that the High Court's order was not illegal; appeal dismissed with no costs. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether appellant, a regular employee earlier promoted on selection from work-charged establishment and regularised in lower pay-scale, is entitled to claim higher scale of pay or promotional post on par with erstwhile juniors/work-charged employees under rationalisation scheme dated September 5, 1988.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's view that the appellant, though entitled to count work-charged service for seniority and promotion, could not claim higher scale of pay or promotional post on par with erstwhile juniors because he was regularised in a lower pay-scale than the rationalised scale.
Law Points
- Service rendered in work-charged posts in same post and scale of pay counts towards inter-se seniority in regular cadre for promotion to next higher scale of pay subject to line of promotion being available
- An employee regularised in lower pay-scale than rationalised scale cannot claim higher scale or promotional post on par with erstwhile juniors
- Rationalisation scheme benefits work-charged employees who could not become regular employees.
