REPORTABLE   

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

   CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6590-6592 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.19953-19955 of 2005)

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Appellant(s)

       Versus

G. RAJANNA & ORS.  Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Questioning correctness of  the judgment rendered by the Division

Bench of the Karnataka High Court the Union of India and the Director, Central

Poultry Breeding Farm Hassarghatta, Bangalore having filed these appeals.  The

controversy lies within a very narrow campass.  The

-2-

respondents who were working as Malis (Gardeners) claimed promotion on the

basis of office memorandum dated 13th September, 1991 as modified by the office

memorandum dated 6th November, 1991.  Both the office memorandums related

to Career advancements of Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees.  Originally the

employees were given a scale of pay of Rs.950/- - Rs.1540/- with a starting pay of

Rs.950/- with effect from 1st April, 1991.  Subsequently, it was clarified that they

were entitled to lesser scale of pay i.e. Rs.775/- - Rs.1025/-.  The basis of the claim

of  the  employees  was  sub-para  (f)  of  the  office  memorandum  dated  13th

September, 1991 which reads as under :-

“Employees given promotion in situ will continue to be borne on the

seniority  list  of  the  lower  cadre/post  and  will  be  considered  for  functional

promotion  against  available  vacancies  as  per  provisions  of  the  Recruitment

Rules.”

The appellants placed reliance on Clause 2(c) and Clause 2(f) of the

aforesaid office memorandum.  After considering the rival stand of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (in short  the 'CAT') which heard the

original application Nos. 573, 666 and 667 of

-3-

1999 observed that the applicants cannot claim the scale of Lower Division Clerk

by way of in-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 :-

“No doubt, the CAT has adverted to the facts pleaded in the original

applications of the petitioners with reference to the statement of counter filed by

the  respondents.   The  CAT  has  proceeded  to  examine  the  claim  of  these

petitioners with reference to the prescriptions of the qualification under the 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 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

-4-

'C'.  Non consideration of this important aspect of the matter and 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.”

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.   

It is to be noted  that the Tribunal's conclusion is based on a reading

of Clause 2(c) and 2(f) of the office Memorandum dated 13th September, 1991 as

modified subsequently by office Memorandum dated 6th November, 1991.  Clause

2 of the office Memorandum dated 6th November, 1991 reads as 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 of the conditions prescribed in the said O.M. Group 'D' employees in

the

-5-

scale of Rs.750-940 will normally be considered for in situ promotion to the next

higher scale of  Rs.775-1025  as that is  the next available scale  in most  of  the

organisations.  So is the case for promotion of employees in 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  allowed  to  the  scale  to  which

promotions are made in that organisation.”

The  observation of  the  Tribunal to  the  effect  that  the  employees

cannot claim scale of Lower Division Clerks by way 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 '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.  

-6-

In our considered view, the 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  in  these  appeals.   Hence  the  appeals  fail  and  are

dismissed but without any order as to costs.

              ....................J.         (Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT)

                          .....................J.             (C.K. THAKKER)

.....................J.   (D.K. JAIN)

New Delhi, October 15, 2008