No new rights of promotion under Time Bound Promotion Scheme were conferred under memorandum of settlements

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 14th February 2020 

The Institute of Charted Accountants of India v. J. R. William Singh (Civil Appeal no. 200 of 2020) 

Facts of the case: 

1. The Respondent in this case is an ‘Electrician’ joined on the date 26/02/1974 by agreeing terms and conditions prescribed in appointment letter. He was confirmed as a permanent for the post of ‘electrician’ with effect from 16/04/1976. 
2. The settlement was reached between the appellant – Institute and its Employees’ Association with respect to time bound promotions and change to next grade. Said settlement was to take effect from 01/01/1984. According to this settlement, two categories namely class (iv) and class (iii) workers were included. In the said settlement, under clause 1 (v) it was further provided that the decision in respect of cases not falling under two broad categories will be taken up by president.
3. Respondent was informed that his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 370/- with effect from 01/01/1984. The subsequent decision dated 25/02/1984, the respondent was given benefit of enhancement in salary in next grade. His pay scale has been revised from Rs. 370/- and fixed at Rs. 425/- he was informed that he will be eligible for next increment. 
4. As per the recommendations of fourth pay commission, pay scale of respondent was again revised and fixed at Rs. 1320/- it appears that employees’ association has raised demands in year of 1987-88, Employees’ Association has raised certain demands. 
5. Respondent vide his letter dated 12/05/1995 made a request for promotion under the TBPS provided under the settlement dated 02/08/1988 as well as the settlement dated 15/06/1991. According to the respondent, he was entitled to get the promotion after expiry of seven years’ period and that his promotion became due on 05/03/1993. Pending such representation, vide office order dated 20/03/1996, the respondent was transferred to Diary/Dispatch Section. Thereafter, on 15/11/1999 respondent requested the secretry of the appellant institute for promoting him to a post of section officer.
6. The prayer of the respondent to promote him to a post of the section officer under TBPS came to be rejected on the ground that as per the settlement dated 10/01/1984 and, more particularly, clause 1 (v) r/w the decision of the president dated 25/02/1984, the respondent shall not be entitled to the promotion being an electrician and shall only be entitled to next grade which has been given to him.
7. Respondent filed the petition before High court regarding this matter praying for higher grade and for the post of section officer. High Court rejected the petition and being aggrieved by it, respondent preferred Letters Patent Appeal before the division bench. Division bench allowed the appeal and quashed the judgment and order passed by the single judge. 
8. Being aggrieved by this judgment of division bench; appellant institute has filed this appeal.  

Judgment:

1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that, respondent was entitled to only the next higher scale which was being paid to him from time to time. It was futher submitted by learned cousel that, merely because for some time, the respondent was directed to look after the work in Diary/Dispatch section as a section officer, it cannot be said that he was appointed as a section officer. It was submitted that all throughout he was continued to be an electrician and therefore, being an electrician, he was not entitled to the time bound promotion. 
2. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that, the order of the president dated 25/02/1984 was not communicated to the respondent and therefore, it was not binding on the respondent. It was further submitted by the leaned counsel for the respondent that, respondent was appointed as a section officer in Diary/Dispatch section and therefore it cannot be said that the respondent was continued to serve as an electrician. 
3. If the respondent is not promoted to the post of the section officer under TBPS, in that case, the object and the purpose of providing the promotion under TBPS, namely, to remove the stagnation at the work place. However, at the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the promotion shall be governed as per the promotion scheme only.
4. It is not that there is a complete stagnation so far as the respondent is concerned. He has been granted the next higher grade as per the decision of the president dated 25/02/1984 which was as per clause 1 (v) of the main settlement dated 10/01/1984. Respondent, being an employee and the member of the association, the settlement arrived was binding on the respondent.  

The Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion that, the impugned judgment and order passed by the division bench of the High Court directing appellant to promote respondent to the post of section officer under TBPS cannot be sustained and deserved to be quashed and set aside. It is directed to appellant that the respondent was entitled to same salary which was being paid to the section officer for the period during which he worked as a section officer.