UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusG. RAJANNA & ORS.

                                  [20C8] 15 S.C.R. 293

    ,.,                                                                         -· f
                                UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                          'A
                                           v.
                                 G. RAJANNA & ORS.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 6590-6592 of 2008)

                                 OCTOBER 15, 2008
                                                                               B
                    [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND
~   .#'•
                                  D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
    '            Service Law:
                                                                               c
                  Career advancement - Promotion under - Claim by
             Malis - Rejected by Central Administrative Tribunal on the
             ground that the incumbents did not possess the requisite
             qualification for the higher post - Allowed by the High Court
             - HELD: The observation of the Tribunal to the effect that the o·<!
        ;.   employees cannot claim scale of Lower Division Clerks by
    i        way of in situ promotion runs contrary to the stand taken by
             Union of India all through - The High Court has correctly
             analysed the office Memorandum, and also rightly noted thfif
             object of office Memorandum related to non-functional posts
             and fixation of pay scales, is to see that Group 'C' and Group E
             'O' employees are not allowed to stagnate in the same cadre
             - Judgment of the High Court is based on a correct
             interpretation of the relevant clause of the office
             Memorandum and no interference is called for- Government
                                                                            c
             of India Office Memorandum dated 13.9.1991 as modified \
             by Office Memorandum dated 6.11.1991 - Clauses 2(c) and
             2m.

                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
             Nos.6590-6592 of 2008.                                            G

    _J'
                  From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2004 of
             the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petitions Nos.
             30501-30503 bf 2000.
                                          293                                  H
             UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. G. RAJANNA & ORS.                 295
                       [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

          cannot claim the scale of Lower Division Clerk by way of in-         A
•         situ promotion. Therefore, the prayer made for relief was
          rejected by the CAT. The respondents-employees moved the
          Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 30501-30503 of
          2000. The High·Court accepted the stand of the employees and
        · observed as under :-                                                 B
               "No doubt, the CAT has adverted to the facts pleaded in
         the original applications of the petitioners with reference to the
~·

i        statement of counter filed by the respondents. The CAT has
         proceeded to examine the claim of these petitioners with
         reference to the prescriptions 0f the qualification under the         c
         Cadre and Recruitment Rules for fixation of the higher pay
         scales to their posts irrespective of the fact as to whether it is
         a functional or non-functional. The object of the office
         Memorandum referred to supra with non-functional posts,
         fixation of pay-scales is to see the Group 'C' and 'D' employees      D
         in the offices of the respondents shall not be allowed to stagnate
~   '    in the same cadre and therefore, certain monetary benefits are
         fixed by the respondents as provided at paragraph 20 of the
         office Memorandum produced at Annexure 'C'. Non
         consideration of this important aspect of the matter and              E
         rejection of the claim of the petitioners by the CAT solely on this
         ground that they do not possess the qualification of Matriculation
         as per C & R Rules has rendered the. impugned order
         erroneous in law."
                                                                               F
             Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
        appellants submitted that the High Court misconstrued the
        scope and ambit of Clause 2(c) and 2(f) of the office
        Memorandum. Learned counsel for the employees supported
        the judgment of the High Court.
                                                                               G
              It is to be noted that the Tribunal's conclusion is b·ased on
        a reading of Clause 2(c) and 2(f) of the office Memorandum
~
        dated 13th September, 1991 as modified subsequently by
        offi~e ~emorandum dated 6th November, 1991. Clause 2 of
        the office Memorandum dated 6th November. 1991 reads as                H
    296       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 15 S.C.R.


A   under:-
                                                                            •
         "It is clarified that in terms of para 2(a) of O.M. dated
     13.9.1991, in situ promotion is to be allowed only to the next
                                                                                 '
    higher scale available in the line of promotion if the requisite
    conditions are fulfilled. In other words, subject to the satisfaction
B
    of the conditions prescribed in the said O.M. Group 'D'
    employees in the scale of Rs. 750-940 will normally be
    considered for in situ promotion to the next higher seal~ of
    Rs. 775-1025 as that is the next available scale in most of the         ·~
                                                                             j
    organisations. So is the Cpse for promotion of employees in
c   the scale of Rs.800-1150 are to be promoted to the scale of
    Rs.825-1200. However if in any particular organisation
    promotions of Group 'D' employees are required to be made.
    in a higher scale instead of scale indicated here, in accordance
    with the Rules of Recruitment, in situ promotion will also be
D   allowed to the scale to which promotions are made in that
    organisation."
                                                                            ~.
         The observation of the Tribunal to the effect that the              l


    employees cannot claim scale of Lower Division Clerks by way
E   of in situ promotion runs contrary to the stand taken by the
    Union of India all through. The High Court in our view has
    correctly analysed the office Memorandum and also rightly
    noted that object of office Memorandum related to non-
    functional posts and fixation of pay scales is to see that Group
F   'C' and Group 'D' employees in the offices of the present
    appellants are not allowed to stagnate in.the same cadre and
    certain monetary benefits are fixed by the noted paragraph of
    the office Memorandum.

       In our considered view, the judgment of the High Court is
G based on a correct interpretation of the relevant clause of the
  office Memorandum and no interference is called for in these
  appeals. Hence the appeals fail and are dismissed but without                      ,_
  any order as to costs.                                                     ~


H   RP.                                          Appeals dismissed.