http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4023 of 2004

PETITIONER: Ram Shankar Bhattacharjee

RESPONDENT: Gauhati High Court & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/12/2004

BENCH: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

       This is an appeal directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench  of the High Court of Gauhati at Agartala Bench.  The appellant Ram Shankar  Bhattacharjee was appointed as Stenographer Grade I on 12.6.1987 at the  Principal seat of  the Gauhati High Court and he joined duties on 28.8.1987.   Thereafter, he was transferred to the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High  Court on 14.3.1988 in a resultant vacancy that was caused on promotion of  one Saradindu Bhattacharjee (senior).  He was confirmed in his post with  effect from 23.8.1990 at the  Principal seat of the High Court at  Gauhati.   The present appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court claiming   seniority over respondents 4 & 5.  Respondent No. 4 Saradindu  Bhattacharjee (Junior) was appointed as Stenographer Grade I on 28.7.1986  at  Agartala  Bench and later on he was transferred to the Principal seat of  the Gauhati High Court on 2.12.1986 and by an order dated 2.4.1990, his  service was confirmed as Stenographer Grade I at the  Agartala Bench.   Respondent no. 5 Manik Dey was appointed as a Stenographer Grade I on  12.6.1987 at the Principal seat of the  Gauhati High Court.  His service was  confirmed on 20.6.1990 at the  Principal seat of the High Court at  Gauhati  and on 9.6.1992 he was transferred to the  Agartala Bench of Gauhati High  Court as Stenographer Grade I.  The claim of  the appellant  was that on his  transfer to  the Agartala Bench  of the  Gauhati High Court, the Chief Justice  of  the Gauhati High Court was pleased to adjust him as a member of the  staff of the Agartala Bench temporarily and he was promoted to the post  of   Private Secretary to  Hon’ble Judge  at  Agartala Bench in the scale of pay of  Rs. 3000-90-3730-95-4100-100-5000 plus other allowances admissible  under the rules and his pay was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.3000-5000  with effect from 23.5.1992.  According to the appellant, his posting as   Private Secretary at  the Agartala Bench was a promotional posting and thus  he gained seniority over the present  respondents  4  &  5, namely,    Saradindu  Bhattacharjee (Junior ) and Manik Dey.  The Writ Petition filed by  the appellant  was allowed and the learned Single Judge held that the  present appellant Ram Shankar Bhattarcharjee was senior to respondents  nos. 4 & 5.  The respondent nos. 4 & 5 filed  a writ appeal before the High  Court and the Division Bench set aside the Judgment of the learned Single  Judge, and held that the present appellant Ram Shankar Bhattacharjee was  junior to Respondent Nos. 4 & 5.  That finding of the Division Bench is  challenged before us.

       We heard the appellant’s Counsel and Counsel for the respondent nos.  4 & 5 and also learned Counsel for the High Court.

       Going by the date of appointment, it could be seen that the present  appellant was appointed  as Stenographer Grade I only on 12.6.1987.  He

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

joined the service on 28.8.1987 whereas  the respondent No. 4 was  appointed as early as  28.7.1986 as Stenographer Grade I and he was  confirmed on 2.4.1990.  Respondent no. 5 was appointed as Stenographer  Grade I on 12.6.1987 and was confirmed on 20.6.1990.  The appellant  claimed seniority over these two respondents on the basis of his posting as  Private Secretary to  Hon’ble Judge in the scale of pay of Rs. 3000-5000.  In  the North Eastern States,  the Benches of the Gauhati High Court were  established in different States on different dates and the Officers and staff of  the Court with the various benches of  the High Court were being given  different pay scales as had been approved by the respective State  Governments.  The appellant was given pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000,   whereas the pay scale of Stenographer Grade I was Rs. 2275-4450.    As per  the Gauhati High Court  (Appointment, Conditions of Service & Conduct)  Rules, 1967, Schedule I 2(B), the cadre of  Stenographers consisted of the  following posts:-  

CLASS-II(B)

I       Private Secretaries                 |   Rs.2275-60-2395-80-2875-EB-100-         (Grade-I Stenographers      |   3575-125-4450/- P.M. Plus special         attached to the             |   pay of Rs. 100/- to Private Secretaries         Hon’ble Chief Justice       |                                             | II      Private Secretaries(Grade-I  |         Stenographers attached to   |         the Hon’ble Judges.         |                                             | III     Other Grade I               | Stenographers               |

       Going by these rules, there is no post as such of Private Secretary  to  Hon’ble Judge with a different pay scale.  However, those who are appointed  as Private Secretaries are entitled to a special pay of Rs. 100.  The Private  Secretaries (Grade I Stenographers) in different benches of the High Court of  Gauhati were in different scales of pay.  This led to resentment and a Writ  Petition was filed by the High Court Employees Association claiming ’Tripura  pay scales’  for all the posts.  That Writ Petition was allowed and the State  Government granted ’Tripura pay scales’  for all the posts,  which were in the  Assam scales of pay.  Consequently, the post of Stenographer Grade I  also   was  re-designated as  ’Private Secretary’  in the pay scale of Rs. 3000- 5000/-.    In the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court, these facts are  disclosed.   

       The short question that came up for consideration is whether the  appellant Ram Shankar Bhattacharjee when  appointed as  Private Secretary  in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000 got a promotion to a higher grade  superceding the claims of the present respondents 4 & 5.  The contention of  the appellant’s learned Counsel that he was given promotion cannot be  accepted for various reasons.  Firstly, there was no post as such as Private  Secretary to the Hon’ble Judge with a different pay scale.  Moreover,  whenever  promotion is effected, the claims of other officers are also to be  considered,  and in the instant case  the claims of respondent nos. 4 & 5  were not considered for such promotion.  The materials produced in this case  would only show that the appellant was posted as Stenographer Grade I and  Private Secretary to the Hon’ble Judge which carried a higher pay scale.  It  was never a promotion superceding the claims of Respondent nos. 4 & 5.   The learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that the post of Private  Secretary was a promotional post at Agartala Bench at the relevant time and  it has been rightly reversed by the Division Bench.  Promotion could be given  only to a post which is given in the classification of the Gauhati High Court  Rules.  As there was no  such post mentioned in the Schedule,   there could  not have been a promotion to that post.

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

       The Division Bench has taken the correct view and we see no reason  to interfere with the same.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.  There will  be no order as to costs.