L. RAJAIAHversusINSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, HYDERABAD AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 184
- Decided
- 5 February 1996
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The appellant was ineligible for promotion during the period of stoppage of increments as he was under disability, but becomes eligible for promotion after the penalty period.
Summary
The appellant, L. Rajaiah, a Junior Assistant in the Andhra Pradesh Registration and Stamps Department, was temporarily promoted to Senior Assistant in 1989 but later had to relinquish the post when senior officers were reinstated. In 1991, two Senior Assistant posts were created, yet the appellant was passed over in favor of his juniors, prompting him to file an application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal ordered that the appellant be considered for promotion, interpreting Rule 34(b)(ii) of the AP State & Subordinate Service Rules to mean that stoppage of increments does not bar promotion. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether stoppage of increments constitutes a penalty that disqualifies an employee from promotion under the seniority‑cum‑fitness criteria. The Court held that during the period of penalty (stoppage of increments from 1‑Mar‑1989 to 28‑Feb‑1994) the appellant was under disability and therefore ineligible for promotion, but he becomes eligible after the penalty period. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether stoppage of increments under Rule 34(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh State & Subordinate Service Rules amounts to a penalty that disqualifies an employee from promotion.
- Whether the appellant was entitled to be considered for promotion during the period of stoppage of increments.
Subjects
Judgment
A L. RAJAIAH
v.
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS,
HYDERABAD AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 5, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
Service Law :
C A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules-Rule 34(b)(ii)--Promo-
tion-Seniority-cum-fitness--l'enalty of stoppage of increments-During the
period of penalty, the official is not entitled to be considered for promotion
as he was under disability undergoing punishment-However after the period
of punishment, he is entitled to be considered for promotion.
--
D CIVIL APJ>ELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3349 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.8.94 of the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 7580of1992.
,E A.D.N. Rao for the Appellant.
K. Ram Kumar for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F Leave granted.
The appellant was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Registration .
and Stamps Department in the Warangal District of AP. in 1978. Respon-
dent Nos. 4 and 5 were juniors to his as Junior Assistants. The appellant
was promoted temporarily as Senior Assistant on October 23, 1989. But
G when his seniors were reverted, he had given place to them. In G.O.M.S.
No. 378 on March 30, 1991 two posts of Senior Assistant were created and
respondents No. 4 and 5 were appointed to those posts but the appellant
was not coiisidered and was thus denied the appointment. Consequently,
he filed an application in the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order
H dated August 5, 1994 made in O.A. No. 7580/92 while holdirig that the
136
L. RAJAIAH v. INSPECTOR GEN OF REGN. AND STAMPS 137
appellant was not entitled to the promotion from the date on which his A
immediate juniors were promoted, directed the respondents to consider his
case for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant as per the rules and
eligibility. Calling in question the said orders this appeal by special has
· been filed.
Shri AD.N. Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended
B
that stoppage of increment is not a penalty for promotion. Under Rule
34(b)(ii) of the AP. State & Subordinate Service Rules, if promotion is
withheld as a penalty, the appellant became ineligible only for promotion.
Stoppage of increment is not a penalty by way of promotion. Under AP.
Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, various types of penalties have C
-- been prescribed. Penalty by way of promotion is one of the punishments
imposed. Therefore, the respondents cannot deny the promotion to the
appellant. Though prima facie, the argument is plausible, it is difficult to
accept the same. Rule 34(b)(ii) itself clearly indicates that promotion
would be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. The Rule reads as D
under:
"Promotion to non-selection category or grade notwithstanding
anything contained in Special Ad hoc Rules and promotions to
Non-section category or grade shall subject to the provisions of
Rule 16, be made in accordance with the seniority- cum-fitness E
unless promotion of a member has been withheld as a penalty."
A reading thereof dearly indicates that notwithstanding anything
contained in special ad hoc rules all promotions to non-selection category
or grade shall, subject to the provisions of Rule 16, may be made in p
accordance with seniority-cum-fitness unless promotion of a Member has
been withheld as a penalty. Though due to stoppage of increment, he is
not ineligible for consideration for promotion, he is otherwise entitled to
be considered in accordance with the Rules, namely, seniority-cum-fitness.
However, when seniority-cum-fitness is the criteria, the imposition of the
penalties for one year on 1.3.1988 and in another enquiry, stoppage of G
increment for five years from 1.3.1989, i.e., till 28.2.1994, disentitled him to
be considered; so he had did not regain fitness for consideration for
promotion as he was under disability undergoing punishment. Consequent-
ly, when the promotion to the post of Senior Assistant is on the basis of
merit and ability under special rules, fitness is une of the considerations H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 2 S.C.R.
A for the purpose. Since he was undergoing punishment during the relevant
period, he is not eligible for consideration for promotion. Therefore, his
--
juniors have stolen march over the appellant as Senior Assistants. He
cannot thereby have any grievance. However, he is entitled to be con-
sidered for promotion according to rules after March 1, 1994.
B The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
G.N. Appeal disposed of
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.