http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: Y. RAMANJANEYULU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/03/1985

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR  928            1985 SCR  (3) 569  1985 SCC  (2) 723        1985 SCALE  (1)655

ACT:      Civil Service-Principle  of Reservation of appointments extended to  all departments  by an Order-No appropriate and timely action taken on It by the Department-Unexplained long delay on  the part  of the appellant in moving for effective remedy-Effect of,

HEADNOTE:      G.O.Ms.No.  559   dated  May  4.  1961  issued  by  the respondent-State provides  that the principle of reservation of appointments  should be  extended to  all cadres of posts including posts  involving  promotions  in  all  departments including the Departments of Secretariat to which it did not apply till then.      The appellant  filed a  Representation Petition  before the Tribunal  as late as 1977 contending that if appropriate action would  have been  taken at the time it was due as per G.O.Ms.No. 559, he would have been eligible for promotion as Deputy Registrar  of Cooperative  Societies in  1965 and  by denying him the said promotion in violation of the aforesaid Govt. Order;  his future  promotion to  the  post  of  Joint Registrar  has   been  adversely   affected.  The   Tribunal dismissed the  petition holding  that tho  special rules for the  Cooperative   service  did  not  contain  any  specific provision for  the application  of rule  of reservation and, therefore. the  appellant was  not  entitled  to  claim  the benefit of the rule of reservation for promotion to the rank of Deputy Registrar between 1965 and 1972 as claimed by him. Hence this appeal by special leave.      Condoning  the   delay  in  filing  the  special  leave petition and disposing of the appeal, the Court ^      HELD: (1)  On a  proper interpretation  of the relevant Government Order, the appellant was entitled to promotion as Deputy Registrar  in the  year 1965 which was postponed upto October 14,  1983 when  he was  promoted as Deputy Register. Though the  appellant made  number of  representation but he moved for  an effective  relief as  late as  1977. Moreover, This is  not the  lone case  and if the Court grants him the Relief as claimed by him. though he has 570 sought relief  after a very long unexplained delay, it would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

create  chaos   in  the  service  and  many  promotions  and reversions will have to be effected. The Court is, therefore not inclined to disturb the existing promotions and postings by holding  that the appellant was entitled to promotion way back in  1965. In  this backgaround,  be is entitled to some monetary compensation.                                               [572G-H; 573A]      (2) If  the appellant  is given  the benefit  of deemed promotion from  1965 the State cannot deny identical benefit to persons  similarly situated  and similarly circumstanced. And they  never questioned  the alleged  impropriety of  not giving them  the benefit  of the Government Order in respect of reservations  in promotion  posts. All these are relevant considerations and  therefore the  amount  of  backwages  is fixed at Rs. 40,000 payable in one lump sum. While computing the amount,  the Court  has kept  in view  the period during which  ,   the  appellant   would  be  entitled  to  relief. Therefore, The  amount of Rs. 40,000 awarded as compensation in the form of backwages is to be spread over for the period 1965 to  1982. Since  the amount is payable in one lump sum, presumably the Government may resort to s. 192 of the Income Tax Act,  but let  it be  made  distinctly  clear  that  the appellant is  entitled to  the benefit  of sec.  89  of  the Income Tax  Act, 1961  and Rule  21A of the Income Tax Rules and is  entitled to  relief of  spread over.  The pay of the appellant shall  also be  fixed at Rs. 1600 i.e. the maximum of the  scale of  Deputy Registrar effective from January 1, 1984. [573E-H; 574B-C]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1384 of 1935             From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.83 of the Administrative  Tribunal   at  Hyderabad  in  Representation Petition No. 1172 of 1977.      A. Subba Rao for the Appellant.      P. Ram  Reddy, R.V.S.N.  Chari and Sudesh Menon for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      DESAI, J. Special leave granted.      Delay in filing the special leave petition condoned.      We heard  mr.A  Subba  Rao,  learned  counsel  for  the appellant and Mr. Ram Reddy, learned senior. counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh.      The appellant  claims that  if appropriate action would have been  taken at the time it was due, as per the Ors. No. 559 571 dated May  4, 1961  which provides  that  the  principle  of reservation should  be  extended  to  all  cadres  of  posts including posts  involving  promotions  in  all  departments including the Departments of Secretariat to which it did not apply till  then, the appellant would have been eligible for promotion as  Deputy Registrar  of Co-operative Societies in 1965. He  also claims  that by  denying him the promotion in violation of  the afore-mentioned  Govt. Order,  his furture promotion to  the post of Joint Registrar has been adversely affected because in that event he would have long since been appointed as Joint Registrar. The appellant sought relief by filing Representation  Petition No.  1172  of  1977  in  the Andhra  Pradesh   Administrative  Tribunal,   Hyderabad  The Tribunal held  that the  special rules  for the Co-operative service did  not contain  any  specific  provision  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

application  of  rule  of  reservation  and,  therefore,  in accordance with  the Government  Memo dated  27.3.1963,  the appellant was  not entitled to claim the benefit of the rule of reservation for promotion to the rank of Deputy Registrar between 1965  and  1972  as  claimed  by  him.’  Alternative submission  of   the  appellant   that  the  action  of  the Government in  giving the benefit of the rule of reservation to the  category of  Section Officers  in the Secretariat in Andhra Pradesh  General Service  for appointment to the rank of Deputy  Registrar while  omitting other feeder categories from which  appointments by  transfers were made to the post of Deputy  Registrar, was discriminatory and hence violative of Arts.  14  and  16  of  the  Constitution,  was  rejected observing that  the promotion from the post of Sub-Registrar of Co-operative Societies to the post of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies  was in  direct line of promotion and therefore, this  category has  been excluded  from the table annexed  to   G.O.Ms  No.   758   dated   October   30,1976. Accordingly, the representation petition was rejected. Hence this appeal by special leave.      When the appeal was taken up for hearing, Mr. Ram Reddy frankly  stated   that  if   the  benefit  of  the  rule  of reservation as set out in the G.O.Ms. 559 of May 4, 1961 was available to  the appellant,  he would  become eligible  for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar wayback in 1965 or latest in  1972. He  also frankly  conceded that  if now the appellant is  given promotion  out of  turn when  he did not take effective  remedial measures  till 1977,  when he filed the  representation   petition,  there  would  be  extensive disturbance in  various categories of posts because once the appellant is given the 572 benefit, there  are numerous  similar cases to whom the same benefit will have to be extended and there will be number of promotions and reversions affecting the service.      Mr. Subba  Rao repelled  the submission saying that the appellant has  been making  numerous  representations  which have fallen  on deaf  ears and  therefore, he  should not be made to suffer and be the victim of bureaucratic callousness and indifference.      It is  now admitted  that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.  376 of  1968 in  the  High  Court,  of  Andhra Pradesh and  in response  to his request, the Government re- fixed the  seniority of  the appellant  in the cadre of sub- Registrars of  Co-operative Societies  just  below  Shri  N. Raghunatha Rao.  It is  also admitted  that  the  petitioner became eligible  for promotion  as Deputy Registrar from the year 1965.  It is  further admitted  that the petitioner has been working  as Deputy  Registrar with  effect from October 14, 1983.      The vertical  line of promotion in Co-operative service appears to be sub-Registrar of Co-operative Societies moving upward as  Deputy Registrar  of Co-operative  Societies  and then to  special category  of Deputy  Registrars and then as Joint Registrar. We were informed that the post of Registrar is an  I.A.S. cadre  post. The appellant as Deputy Registrar at present  is in  the pay  scale of  Rs. 1050-1600  and his substantive pay  is  Rs.  1400  per  month.  The  pay  scale admissible for  the  post  of  special  category  of  Deputy Registrar is Rs. 1250-1800.      Mr. Ram  Reddy, learned  counsel for  the State of A.P. fairly  stated  that  if  the  court  does  not  accept  the interpretation as  put by  the Tribunal,  then obviously the appellant would be eligible for promotion from 1965. But his is not  the lone case and if the court grants him the relief

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

as claimed  by him, though he has sought relief after a very long unexplained delay, it would create chaos in the service and many promotions and reversions will have to be effected. According to  Mr. Ram  Reddy, it is a case in which monetary compensation  would   be  more   than  adequate.   There  is considerable  force  in  this  submission.  As  pointed  out earlier, though  undoubtedly the  appellant made  number  of representations, he moved for an effective relief as late as 1977. We are therefore, not inclined to disturb the existing promotions and postings by holding that the 573 appellant was  entitled to  promotion way  back in  1965. In this background,  the appellant is entitled to some monetary compensation.      Mr.  Ram  Reddy  pointed  out  that  after  giving  the appellant a  deemed promotion  from  1965,  if  his  monthly salary is  worked out according to the scale then admissible for the  promotional post,  roughly Rs.  1,20,000  would  be payable to  him. And  if he  is given the benifit, the State cannot deny  identical benefit to persons similarly situated and similarly  circumstanced. And  they never questioned the alleged impropriety  of not  giving them  the benefit of the Government order  in respect  of reservations in promotional posts. All  these are  relevant considerations  and to  some extent for this situation the appellant himself is to blame. Mr.  Ram   Reddy  suggested   that  the   adequate  monetary compensation could  be around Rs. 30,000. On the other hand, Mr. A.  Subba Rao  attempted to  pursuade us to give all the backwages on  the footing  of a deemed date of promotion. We propose to steer the middle course.      Before we determine the amount payable as backwages, we must make  it distinctly  clear  that  while  computing  the amount we  have kept  in view  the period  during which  the appellant would  be entitled  to relief  at  our  hands.  As pointed  earlier,  on  a  proper  inter-  pretation  of  the relevant Government  order, the  appellant was  entitled  to promotion in  the year  1965 which  was postponed upto 1983. Therefore,  this   amount  which  we  propose  to  award  as compensation in  the form  of backwages is to be spread over for the  period 1965  to 1982.  Now that  the amount  of  Rs 40,000 which  we are  hereby awarding is payable in one lump sum, presumably the Government may resort to Sec. 192 of the Income Tax Act, but let it be made distinctly clear that the appellant is  entitled to  the benefit  of Sec.  89  of  the Income Tax  Act, 1961  and Rules 21A of the Income Tax Rules and he  is entitled  to relief  of spread  over.  Therefore, while computing  the total  amount of Rs 40,000 we have kept the spread  over in  view for  a period  of roughly 17 years which would  mean that  he is  being awarded  Rs. 2, 500 per year as  backwages. This  would not make the income taxable, if it  is not otherwise taxable. If therefore, any deduction is made  towards income  tax while  making the payment it is iucumbent upon  the Andhra  Pardesh authorities  to take all necessary steps to obtain the 574 relief for the appellant under Sec. 89 of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 21A of the Income Tax Rules.      The appellant  is already  promoted as Deputy Registrar of Co operative Societies. The scale admissible for the post is Rs  1050 1600.  We direct  that the  pay of the appellant shall be  fixed at  Rs. 1600  i.e. the  maximum of the scale effective from  January 1,  1984 and  he should  be paid  Rs 40,000 in  all towards  backwages. We order accordingly. The payment herein  directed shall  be made  within a  period of three months from today. We order accordingly. There will be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

no order as to costs. M.L.A.                                Appeal allowed in part 575