AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the applicant.
The present restoration application has been filed by counsel for the applicant on the ground that the appeal was listed before the Division Bench on 03.04.2018 but counsel for the applicant could not mark the case and therefore, failed to appear before the Court at the time of hearing.
Counsel for the applicant pleads a bona fide mistake for his non-appearance. He contends that the applicant has been deprived of the fruits of promotion on the basis of the administrative instructions issued by the non-applicants, whereas, such letter of instructions is not having any force of law.
The applicant-appellant entered the service as a Development Officer Grade - II on 01.01.1990 and was confirmed on 01.01.1991. At the time of his initial appointment, his pay was fixed as per Clause 7(A) of the General Assurance (Rationalization of pay scale and other conditions of service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976. From 01.04.1994, he was allowed the pay scale of Development Officer Grade - I. His grievance is that his pay in the scale of Development Officer Grade - I should have been fixed with effect from 01.01.1991, the date when he was confirmed as Development Officer Grade - II.
It was noted that the scheme prescribes different pay scales for Development Officer Grade - I & II. For placing a person in the scale of Development Officer Grade - I, the targets set for the respective financial year were required to be achieved. Since the applicant achieved those targets in the year 1992-93, he was placed in the scale of Development Officer Grade - I w.e.f. 01.04.1994.
We note that such grants/placements are in accordance with the administrative instructions prescribed by the company vide Letter dated 16.10.1991, a reference of which is given in the document Annexure-R/1, which holds the field.
We further note that the appeal of the applicant was pending adjudication before this Court for last eight years. It was, therefore, taken up for hearing and decided by us vide Order dated 03.04.2018.
In view of the discussion made above, we are not inclined to allow this restoration application, the same lacks merit, hence dismissed.