AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Akil Kureshi, CJ
These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.01.2016 passed in WP(C) 411 of 2012.
We may record facts from Writ Appeal no. 9 of 2016. This appeal has been filed by the original respondents no. 7 and 8 of the writ petition. The petitioner no.1 was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC for short) in the Tripura Scheduled Tribes Co-operative Development Corporation Limited (Corporation for short) on 24.02.1986. She was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC for short) on 27.12.1993. The petitioner no. 2 was directly recruited as an UDC on 25.01.1992.
The original respondent no. 7 i.e. the appellant no. 1, herein, was appointed as Accounts Clerk on 25.05.1990. This cadre was re-designated/upgraded to UDC (Accounts) on 01.01.1994. The respondent no. 8 i.e. appellant no.2, herein, was similarly appointed as Accounts Clerks on 02.09.1991. She also got the benefit of re-designation of the said cadre as UDC (Accounts) w.e.f. 01.01.1994.
The Corporation published a draft seniority list of the cadre of UDC on 12.04.2012. The original petitioners were shown senior to the present appellants, the original respondents no. 7 and 8. The appellants raised objections to the said draft seniority list. The Corporation published a final seniority list on 22.05.2012 in which the original petitioners were shown senior to the present appellants i.e. respondents no. 7 and 8 of the writ petition. In that background, the petitioners challenged the seniority list and claimed the relief against the present appellants as well as respondent no.9 of the original petition. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition and directed redrawing of the seniority list. This judgment has been challenged by the original respondents no. 7,8,9 and 10. The respondents no. 9 and 10 have not filed any appeal. The Corporation has preferred a separate appeal which is numbered as W.A. 11 of 2016.
Appearing for the private appellants, the learned senior counsel Mr. S.K. Deb, drew our attention to the various resolutions passed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation under which it was decided to grant higher pay-scale to the Accounts Clerks. He has submitted that pursuant to such deliberations the post was re-designated as UDC (Accounts) on 01.01.1994, however such decision related back to the date of creation of the cadre. Learned counsel for the Corporation adopted the same arguments and opposed the decision of the learned Single Judge.
On the other hand counsel for the original petitioners supported the decision of the learned Single Judge and submitted that both the petitioners who were appointed as UDCs long before the cadre of Accounts Clerks were re-designated. They submitted that this was effectively an up-gradation of the posts. Till 01.01.1994 the Accounts Clerks were placed in the same pay-scale as that of the LDC. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, correctly set aside that final seniority list.
The relevant dates are not in dispute. Both the original petitioners who were brought in the cadre of UDC before 01.01.1994, petitioner no. 1 was promoted to the said post on 27.12.1993, petitioner no.2 was directly recruited on 25.01.1992. It is also not in dispute that the appellants i.e. the original respondents no. 7 and 8 were initially appointed in the post of Accounts Clerks at a time when the pay-scale for the said post was identical to that of the LDC. The Board of Directors of the Corporation in its meeting dated 15.06.1987, in one of its decisions decided to accept the proposal of the employees of the Corporation who will be entitled to pay and allowances as admissible to the similar category of the employees of the Government of Tripura. However, this decision does not seem to have been implemented by the Corporation and therefore, the Board of Directors on 17.07.1993 again considered the proposal for up-gradation of the pay-scale of the Accounts Clerks of the Corporation. In this context the Board accepted the proposal for giving pay-scale to the Accounts Clerks which was admissible to the incumbent of the government department to its Accounts Clerks in light of the previous decision dated 16.06.1987. By way of a culmination of these deliberations, the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 28.08.1993 approved the pay-scales proposed for the said post of Accounts Clerks in the Corporation. Eventually, the Managing Director of the Corporation passed an order dated 28.12.1993 which reads as under:
"ORDER
The Management of the Tripura Scheduled Tribes Cor-operative Development Corporation and Tripura Scheduled Castes Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd. have been listed to allow the pay scale of Rs. 1250-45-1610-50-2010-55- 1980 to the following Accounts Clerks of the Corporations w.e.f. 1.1.94 and re-designate them as U.D. Clerk (Accounts) from the said date.
This has the approval of the Board of Directors of Tripura ST Coop. Dev. Corporation vide agenda item No. 12 of the meeting held on 17.7.93 and that of SC Coop. Dev. Corporation vide agenda item No. 12 of the 19th meeting held on 20.8.93.
NAME OF THE ACCOUNTS CLERK
Shri Amulya Ch. Sarkar.
Shri Debajit Chakraborty.
Shri Santosh Kr. Sarma.
Shri Sanjoy Kr. Pal.
Their pay may be fixed as per normal rules".
Essentially, therefore, right upto 01.01.1994 the post of Accounts Clerks continued to be placed in the pay-scale which was identical to the LDC. It was only above the final resolution being passed by the Board on 20.08.1993 that the Managing Director while implementing such decision, allowed the pay-scale of Rs. 1250-1980/- to the Accounts Clerks of the Corporation w.e.f. 01.01.1994 by re-designating them as UDC Clerk (Accounts). Effectively, therefore, the said employees can claim the places in the cadre of UDC only w.e.f. 01.01.1994. Till this re-designation and up-gradation of pay-scale they were drawing a lower scale of pay than that prescribed for the post of LDC which post the original petitioners were already holding prior to 01.01.1994.
The learned Single Judge therefore, in our opinion, did not commit any error in directing correction of the seniority list.
Appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.