http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: R. SWAMINATHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/09/1997

BENCH: J. S. VERMA, SUJATA V. MANOHAR, B. N. KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: [With C.A.Nos.  8810, 8690-94,  8731-8777, 8876, 8813, 8680- 82, 8684-8686,  8873, 8874, 8778-8800, 8814-8816, 8817-8818, 8875, 10978  of 1996,  8811-8812, 8687,  8730, 8689,  887 of 1996 689,  690 of 1997, C.A.Nos. 6267-6287 of 1997 [@ SLP[C] Nos. 11886-1188,  13830-13832, 18255,  18903, 20988,  23712, 20488, 24726,  24729, 25067-25068,  25132, 24759,  24238  of 1996, 3117, 2849 of 1997, 17452.../97 [CC 3258/97], 3796/97]                       J U D G M E N T Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.      Delay condoned.      Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.      These appeals  have been  filed from  the  judgment  of different Benches  of the  Central Administrative  Tribunal. The employees who are before us belong to the Departments of Posts and  Telegraph and  Telecommunications.  They  can  be broadly classified  into two categories: those who belong to the Accounts  stream and those who belong to the Engineering stream. In  the Accounts  stream we  are concerned  with two posts, the  posts of Assistant Accounts Officer and the next promotional post  of Accounts  Officer. In  the  Engineering stream, there  are  employees  belonging  to  the  Telegraph Traffic  Services   and  employees   belonging  to  Posts  & Telegraph  Electrical wing Service. In the Telegraph Traffic Service, we  are concerned with the posts of Junior Engineer and the  next promotional post of Assistant Engineer. In the stream of  Telegraph Traffic  Service we  are concerned with the posts  of Assistant  Superintendent,  Telegraph  Traffic subsequently re-designated as Junior Telecom Officer and the next promotional  post of  Superintendent, Telegraph Traffic now designated  as Sub-Divisional  Engineer. In  the Posts & Telegraph Electric  wing we  are concerned  with the post of Junior Engineer  and the  next promotional post of Assistant Engineer. In  C.A. No.8730/96  the respondent  was a  junior Stenographer in the National Aerospace Laboratories, Council of Scientific  and  Industrial  Research.  In  the  question raised is the same: of Pay fixation on promotion.      All these  appeals and  special leave petitions raise a common  question   relating  to  interpretation  of  certain Fundamental Rules  which govern  the services  of all  these employees, and  certain Government  Orders  issued  in  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

behalf. The  promotees who  are respondents in these appeals claim that  they are getting in the promotional subsequently promoted to  the same  post. This is an anomaly which should be removed  by stepping their pay to the same level as their junior from the date he was promoted.      For the  sake of  convenience we  are referring  to the facts in  Civil Appeal  No.8658 of  1996. The respondent, R. Swaminathan, at  the material  time, was an Accounts Officer with the  Madras  Telephones.  Prior  to  his  promotion  as Accounts Officer  he held  the post  of Accounts  Officer on 18.2.1988  his  pay  junior  to  the  respondent,  was  also subsequently promoted  to the  post of  Account Officer. His pay,  however,   was  fixed  at  Rs.3125/-.  The  respondent thereupon filed  O.A.No.1324  of  1993  before  the  Central Administrative Tribunal,  Madras Bench clamming that his pay should be  stepped up to equal that of his junior J.N. Misra from the  date on which the anomaly arose and that he should be paid  all arrears  arising on account of such refixation. The Tribunal  by its  Judgment dated  9.2.1994  allowed  the respondent’s  application   on  the  basis  of  its  earlier decision which  is also  the subject matter of appeal before us.      Fixation of  pay on  promotion  to  a  higher  post  is governed by  Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1) which was formerly Fundamental Rule 22-C. it is as follows:      "F.R.22(I): The  initial pay  of  a      Government servant who is appointed      to a post on a time-scale of pay is      regulated as follows :-           (a)(1)  Where   a   Government      servant holding  a post, other than      a tenure  post, in a substantive or      temporary or  officiating  capacity      is  promoted   or  appointed  in  a      substantive,      temporary      of      officiating capacity,  as the  case      may be,  subject to  the fulfilment      of the  eligibility  conditions  as      prescribed    in    the    relevant      Recruitment Rules, to another  post      carrying         duties         and      responsibilities     of     greater      importance than  those attaching to      the post  held by  him his  initial      pay in the time-scale of the higher      post shall  be fixed  at the  stage      next above the notional pay arrived      at  the   increasing  his   pay  in      respect of  the lower  post held by      him regularly  by an  increment  at      the stage  at which  such  pay  has      accrued or rupees twenty-five only,      whichever is more."      .................      .................      The proviso to Fundamental Rule 22 is as follows;           "Provided that,  both in cases      covered  by   Clause  (a)   and  in      cases....... covered by Clause (b),      if he--           (1)   has    previously   held      substantively or officiated in      (i) the same post,      (ii) ...............      (iii) ..............

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

    (2) ...............           then  the  initial  pay  shall      not, except  in cases  of reversion      to parent cadre governed by proviso      (1) (iii),  be less  than the  pay,      other than  special  pay,  personal      pay or  any other  emoluments which      may  be   classed  as  pay  by  the      President  under   Rule  9(21)  (a)      (iii) which  he drew  on  the  last      occasion, and  he shall  count  the      period during  which he  drew  that      pay on a regular basis on such last      and  any   previous  occasions  for      increment in the stage of the time-      scale  equivalent   to  that   pay.      ............."      For the  fixation on  pay on  promotion, therefore, one has to  first look at the pay being drawn by the promotee in the lower post. This pay in the lower post must be increased by one  increment in  that pay-scale. His initial pay in the time-scale of  the higher  post is  fixed at  the stage next above the notional pay arrived at in the lower post.      The fixation  of  this  pay  in  the  higher  post  is, however, subject  to the  proviso. If the person so promoted has earlier  officiated in that higher post or substantively held that  higher post  for short or long duration, then (1) his initial  pay which is fixed under Rule 22(I)(a)(1) shall not be  less than  the last  pay which  he drew when he last held the  higher post.  (2) The  period during which he drew that pay on such last and any previous occasions shall count for increments  in the  time-scale of the pay for the higher post. For  example,  if  the  promotee  had  previously,  on various  occasion,   officiated  in  that  higher  post  for different periods, and if the sum total of periods for which he so  officiated is  more  than  12  months,  he  would  be entitled to  an increment,  in that  higher  pay-scale.  His initial pay,  therefore, on his regular promotion will fixed taking into  account not merely his entitlement on the basis of his  notional pay in the pay-scale of the lower post, but also taking  into account the last pay drawn by him while he was officiating  in the  higher post  and also  counting the previous periods  during which  he  so  officiated  for  his increment in  the higher pay scale. The Department has also, in this  connection, drawn our attention to Fundamental Rule 26 which, inter alia, provides as follows:           "F.R 26(a): All duty in a post           on  a  time-scale  counts  for           increments in that time-scale:           Provided that, for the purpose      of arriving at the data of the next      increment in  that time-scale,  the      total of all such periods as do not      count for  increment in  that time-      scale, shall be added to the normal      date of increment."      ...................      We  are,   however,  in  the  present  case,  concerned basically with  Fundamental  Rule  22(I)  (a)  (1)  and  the proviso  to  Fundamental  Rule  22  because,  in  all  these appeals, the  junior employees  who have  got higher  pay on promotion  the   their  seniors,   had  officiated   in  the promotional post  for different  periods on account of local ad hoc  promotions granted  to them.  This  is  because  the Department of Telecommunications is divided into a number of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

Circles within  the country. The regular higher posts are on the basis of all India seniority. The Heads of Circles have, however, been  delegated powers for making local officiating arrangements based  on Circles seniority to the higher posts in question  against short-term  vacancies upto  120 days in the  event  of  the  regular  panelled  officers  not  being available in  that Circle.  This  period  of  120  days  was subsequently revised  to 180  days. Under this provision for local officiation, the senior-most official in the Circle is allowed to hold the Charges of the Higher post for a limited duration.   This    is   purely    out   of   administrative considerations and  is resorted to in order to tide over the exigencies of  work. The practice, we are informed, has been followed   in    all   Circles    in   the   Department   of Telecommunications since  1970. This is because, at times it is not possible to fill up all the vacancies in a particular Circle  for   various  reasons  such  as  non-joining  by  a particular person,  chain promotions or short-term vacancies arising on  account of  leave etc. It is submitted before us by the  Department that it is not always possible to convene the meetings  of the  departmental promotion  committee  for filling up  all the posts which are only available for short periods  on   all  India  basis  because  of  administrative problems.  To  fill  up  this  gap,  Government  has  issued instructions from  time to  time to  allow local officiating arrangements in  the interest  of work.  The department  has also pointed  out that  all the aggrieved employees in these appeals have  availed of  such officiating promotions as and when such  occasion arose  in their  Circle  and  they  were eligible. The juniors, therefore, in each of these cases who have received  a higher  pay on their regular promotion than the seniors, have received this higher pay on account of the application of the proviso to Fundamental Rule 22.      According to the aggrieved employees, this has resulted in an  anomaly. Government  Order bearing No. F.2 (78)E. III (A)/66 dated  4th of  February, 1996,  has been  issued  for removal of  anomaly by  stepping up  of  pay  of  senior  on promotion drawing  less pay  that his junior. It provides as follows:      "(10)   Removal   of   anomaly   by      stepping up  of pay  of  Senior  on      Promotion drawing less pay than his      junior.--(a)   As   a   result   of      application of  F.R.  22-C.  --  In      order to  remove the  anomaly of  a      Government  servant   promoted   or      appointed to  a higher  post on  or      after in  that  post  than  another      Government servant junior to him in      the lower  grade  and  promoted  or      appointed in  the lower  grade  and      promoted or  appointed subsequently      to another  identical post,  it has      been of the decided that such cases      the pay  of the  senior officer  in      the higher  post should  be stepped      upto a  figure equal  to the pay as      fixed for  the  junior  officer  in      that higher  post. The  stepping up      should be done with effect from the      date of promotion or appointment of      the  junior  officer  and  will  be      subject    to     the     following      conditions. namely:-           (a)  Both   the   junior   and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

              senior  officers   should                belong to  the same cadre                and the  posts  in  which                they have  been  promoted                or  appointed  should  be                identical and in the same                cadre:           (b)  The scale  of pay  of the                lower and higher posts in                which they  are  entitled                to  draw  pay  should  be                identical:           (c)  the  anomaly   should  be                directly as  a result  of                the application  of  F.R.                22-C.  For   example,  if                even in  the  lower  post                the junior  officer draws                from  time   to  time   a                higher rate  of pay  than                the senior  by virtue  of                grant     of      advance                increments,   the   above                provisions  will  not  be                invoked to  step  up  the                pay   of    the    senior                officer.           The orders refixing the pay of      the senior  officers in  accordance      with the  above provisions shall be      issued  under   F.R.27.  the   next      increment  of  the  senior  officer      will be  drawn on completion of the      requisite qualifying  service  with      effect from  the date of refixation      of pay.:      As the  order itself states, the stepping up is subject to three  conditions: (1)  Both the  junior and  the  senior officers should  belong to  the same  cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical and in the same cadre;  (2) the  scales of  pay of the lower and higher posts should  be identical  and  ;  (3)  anomaly  should  be directly as  a result of the application of Fundamental Rule 22-c which  is now  Fundamental Rule  22(I) (a)  (1). We are concerned with the last condition. The difference in the pay of a  junior and  a senior  in the  cases before us is not a result of the application of Fundamental Rule 22(1) (a) (1). The higher  pay received  by a  junior is  on account of his earlier officiation  in the  higher post  because  of  local officiating promotions  which he got in the post. Because of the proviso  to Rule 22 he may have earned increments in the higher pay-scale  of the  post to  which he  is promoted  on account of  his past  service and  also, his previous pay in the promotional  post has  been taken into account in fixing his pay  on promotion.  it is  these two  factors which have increased the  pay of the juniors. This cannot be considered as an  anomaly requiring  the stepping  of the  pay  of  the seniors.      The Officer  Memorandum dated  4.11.1993, Government of India, Department  of Personnel  & Training, has set out the various instances  where stepping  of pay cannot be done. It gives, inter  alia, the  following instances which have come to the  notice of the department with a request for stepping up of pay. There are:      "(a) Where  a  senior  proceeds  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

         Extra  Ordinary   Leave  which           results  in   postponement  of           Date of  Next Increment in the           lower  post,  consequently  he           starts drawing  less pay  than           his junior  in the lower grade           itself. He,  therefore, cannot           claim pay  parity on promotion           even though he may be promoted           earlier to the higher grade:      (b)  If a  senior  foregoes/refuses           promotion   leading   to   his           junior                   being           promoted/appointed   to    the           higher  post  earlier,  junior           draws  higher   pay  than  the           senior. The  senior may  be on           deputation while junior avails           of the ad hoc promotion in the           cadre. The increased pay drawn           by a  junior either  due to ad           hoc        officiation/regular           service rendered in the higher           posts for periods earlier than           the senior, cannot, therefore,           be an  anomaly in strict sense           of the term.      (c)  If a  senior joins  the higher           post later than the junior for           whatsoever reasons, whereby he           draws  less   pay   than   the           junior, in  such cases  senior           cannot claim  stepping  up  of           pay at par with the junior."      (d)  ...................           .................      There are also other instances cited in the Memorandum. The Memorandum makes it clear that in such instance a junior drawing more  pay than  his senior  will not  constitute  an anomaly and,  therefore, stepping  up of  pay  will  not  be admissible. The  increased pay  drawn by a junior because of ad hoc officiating or regular service rendered by him in the higher post  for periods  earlier than  the  senior  is  not anomaly because  pay does  not depend  on seniority alone is seniority alone a criterion for stepping up of pay.      The  aggrieved   employees  have  contended  with  some justification that  local officiating  promotions  within  a Circle have  resulted in their being deprived of a chance to officiate in  the higher post. If such chance of officiation arises in a different Circle. They have submitted that since there is  an All India seniority for regular promotion. this All Indian  seniority must  prevail even  while making local officiating appointments  within any Circle. The question is basically of administrative exigency and the difficulty that the administration  may face  if even  short-term  vacancies have to  be filled  on the  basis of  All India seniority by calling a  person who may be stationed in a different Circle in a region remote from the region where the vacancy arises, and that  too for  a short  duration. This  is essentially a matter of  administrative policy. But the only justification for local  promotions  is  their  short  duration.  If  such vacancy is  of a  long duration  there is  no administrative reason for  not following  the all  India seniority. Most of the grievances  of the employees will be met if proper norms are laid  down for  making local officiating promotions. One

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

thing, however,  is clear,  Neither the  seniority  nor  the regular promotion  of these  employees is  affected by  such officiating local  arrangement. The  employees who  have not officiated in the higher post earlier, however, will not get the benefit of the Proviso to Fundamental Rule 22.      The employees  in question are, therefore, not entitled to have their pay stepped up under the said Government Order because the  difference in  the pay  drawn by  them and  the higher pay  drawn by their juniors is not as a result of any anomaly:  nor   is  it   a  result  of  the  application  of Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1).      The appeals  are, therefore,  allowed and  the impugned orders of  different Benches  of the  Central Administrative Tribunal which  have held  to the  contrary are  set  aside. There will, however, be no order as to costs.