Skip to content


Gabrel Saver Fernandis Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P. No. 3085 of 1978
Judge
Reported inILR1985KAR3113
AppellantGabrel Saver Fernandis
RespondentState of Karnataka
Appellant AdvocateT.S. Ramachandra, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.V. Narasimhan, HCGP
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
civil services - selection time scale -- g.o. no. fd 37 srp (1) 71 dated 22-2-1971 -- rules 5 (1)(b) & 5.5 -- scope -- provisions not independent -- general principles outlined in 5 & 5.1(b) and grant of selection time scale in 5.5.;rule 5.5 contemplates grant of selection time scale in accordance with general principles outlined in paragraph 5.1(b). even for extension of selection time scale to category of posts mentioned in annexure iii, criteria required to be adopted is the same as provided in section 5.1(b). it is not, as if, notwithstanding what is contained in 5.1(b) officer holding the post enumerated in annexure iii are entitled to selection time scale of pay. if all officers who have put in a minimum 10 years of service in a particular cadre with satisfactory..........contention is that on account of denial of promotional avenue, they are entitled to a selection time scale which ordinarily will be the next higher scale of pay, as suggested by a committee constituted for the removal of anomaly from 'tukol pay commission report', captioned as, implementation of recommendations of the official (pay) committee. in the preamble of this book-let after narrating reasons for constitution of a committee, it is slated thus :-'the pay scales sanctioned for some posts with effect from 1st january 1970 on the recommendations made by the pay commission re-quire revision, because these scales were recommended by the commission based on the material placed before it, some of which was inadequate or factually incorrect or did not give a correct picture of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Doddakale Gowda, J.

1. Petitioners were all recruited as Talathis in erstwhile State of Bombay and, on reorganization, their services stood transferred to the new State of Karnataka. The mini-mum qualification for recruitment then in force was a passin School Leaving Certificate examination. Talathis, as submitted by Sri T. S. Ramachandra, Learned Counsel for petitioners, were all eligible for promotion as CircleInspectors, if they had continued in the erstwhile State of Bombay. On account of prescription of minimum qualification i.e., a pass in S.S.L.C., in the New State of Karnataka they are not eligible for promotion and there is no other avenue of promotion.

2. Their main contention is that on account of denial of promotional avenue, they are entitled to a selection time scale which ordinarily will be the next higher scale of pay, as suggested by a committee constituted for the removal of anomaly from 'Tukol Pay Commission Report', captioned as, Implementation of Recommendations of the Official (Pay) Committee. In the preamble of this book-let after narrating reasons for constitution of a Committee, it is slated thus :-

'The pay scales sanctioned for some posts with effect from 1st January 1970 on the recommendations made by the Pay Commission re-quire revision, because these scales were recommended by the Commission based on the material placed before it, some of which was inadequate or factually incorrect or did not give a correct picture of the duties and responsibilities attached to the posts.'

Rule 4 intends to build into the pay structure, an element of incentive to loyal and efficient service, by sanctioning 'stagnation increments.' Rule 5 provides for payment of selection time scale subject to satisfactory record of service and a minimum 10 years of service.

Relevant clause 5. 1 (b) and 5.5 reads thus :-

'5.1 (b) Where upgradation of the posts in a Cadre is not justified by the workload and the level of duties and responsibilities attached to the posts and the period of service required to be rendered by aGovernment employee for promotion is generally known to extend 10 years of where he has no chances or limited chances of promotion, a selection time scale, which will ordinarily be the next higher scale of pay may besanctioned for the posts and the employee may subject to satisfactory record of service, he promoted to the selection time scale, after completion of such period of service as may be specified in each case.'

xxxx xxxx xxxx

'5.5. In accordance with the general principles outlined in paragraph 5.1 (b) above, selection time scales of pay shall be sanctioned for the posts specified in Annexure-III, subject to the conditions stipulated herein.'

Contention of Sri T.S. Ramachandra, Learned Counsel for petitioners, is that even if post held by petitioners is not included in Annexure-III of this order, their cases squarely falls within 5.l(b), as such they are entitled to selection time scale. Per contra, Sri S.V. Narasimhan, Learned High Court Government Pleader, contended that benefit conferred in 5.1 (b) is restricted to category of posts enumerated in Annexure-III.

3. Thus, controversy required to be resolved is whether these two clauses viz., 5.l(b) and 5.5 are independent pro-visions or one controls the other ?

4. Elaborating his contention Sri T. S. Ramachandra submitted that benefit conferred under Section 5 1 (b) is applicable to all categories wherever an officer has put in minimum period of 10 years in a particular cadre with satisfactory record of service. Rule 5.5 is applicable to category of posts enumerated therein and will not deny, deprive or curtail benefit extended to other officials. Rule 5.5. contemplates grant of selection time scale in accordance with generalprinciples outlined in paragraph 5.1 (b). Even for extension of Selection Time Scale to category of posts mentioned in Annexure-III, criteria required to be adopted is the same as provided in 5.1(b). It is not, as if,notwithstanding what is contained in 5.1(b) Officer holding the post enumerated in Annexure-III are entitled to selection time scale of pay. If all officers who have put in a minimum 10 years of service in a particular cadre with satisfactory record are entitled to benefit of selection time scale, there was no necessity to restrict the benefit to only those posts mentioned in Annexure-III.

5. More than anything, what I noticed is that the commitee instead of removing anomalies has created moreanomalies than it existed in the original report. Selection Time Scale as provided in 5.1 (b) is the next higher scales of pay. The revised pay scales for First Division Clerks and Second Division Clerks are 130-290 and 90-200 respectively. But, in Col. No. 3 of Annexure-III selection time scale is fixed at Rs. 120-240. This pay-scale is neither the pay scale of a SecondDivision Clerk nor the pay scale of a First Division Clerk. Likewise, a Typist/Stenographer Gr. II will be entitled to the pay scale of a Stenographer Gr. I which is fixed at Rs. 130-290 in the revised pay scales. But in Col. III of Annexure-III, Selection Time Scale of pay for a Typist and Stenographer Gr. II is fixed at Rs. 120-240. Reason for extracting these instances is to test the fallacy of Sri T. S. Ramachandra's argument that these two are independent provisions and one has nothing to do with the other. For categories enumerated in Annexure III, as indicated above, Selection Time Scale of pay will be less than the next higher pay-scale; for other posts not included in Annexure-III, they will be entitled to next higher pay scale i.e., revised pay scale fixed in revised pay Rules of 1970 If that plea is accepted, it results in anomaly. In order to get over this hurdle, it is submitted that a SecondDavison Clerk who fulfills the conditions referred to in column 4 of Annexure-III will be benefited immediately i.e., with effect from 1-1 -1970 that is why a lesser scale is provided incolumn No. 3. Conditions specified in column 4 are not different from the one incorporated in 5.1 (b). Hence, I find no substance in this contention.

6. I find no merit in this Writ Petition. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //