AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surinder Singh, J.—Initially O.A. was filed before the erstwhile Tribunal u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 by the petitioner for issuing of following direction to the respondents:
A) That the respondent No. 1 be directed to give the promotion to the applicant as a Controller w.e.f. 21st March, 2006 when it was due.
B) That the respondent No. 1 be directed to grant pay scale of Rs. 16,400-22,400/- to the applicant w.e.f. 4.5.2006 and also make the payment of arrears accrued on account of non-payment of pay scale and not giving promotion from the date alongwith interest @ 18%.
C) That Annexure A-6 i.e. notification No. Fin (TR)B(4)- 11/85 dated 26.11.2007 may kindly be quashed and set aside as the same is contrary to the terms and condition of University Grant Commission wherein the age of superannuation is 60 years for the employee of Universities and which were adopted by HP Govt. vide Notification No. EDN-A-Chha(7)10/98 Loose dt. 7.5.1999 and subsequently adopted by HPU vide Notification No. 9-1/90-HPU (Gen.)-Vol III dated 20.5.1999 and allow the applicant to continue in service as Finance Officer till he attains the age of 60 years.
After the abolition of the Tribunal this O.A. alongwith other matters pending in the Tribunal, were transferred to this Court vide Notification dated 25th July, 2008, which came into force with effect from 8th July, 2008 and this petition was registered as CWP(T) No. 764 of 2008.
Heard and gone through the record.
In the month of May, 1969, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of the erstwhile District Mahashu (HP) and in the year 1976 was promoted as Assistant. In the year 1982, he qualified the Subordinate Accountant Service (SAS), as such he was appointed and posted as Section Officer in Food and Civil Supply Department of the State Government. In the year 1989, he was promoted as Assistant Controller Finance & Accounts (F&A) and served in the same capacity in various Departments and later as Deputy Controller (F&A) of the State Government. Thereafter in the year 2002 as Finance Manager in HP AIDS Control Society at Shimla.
In 2003 the petitioner was promoted as Joint Controller (F&A) and was posted in the Directorate of Higher Education. Later in February, 2006 he held the additional charge of Controller (F&A) till May, 2006.
The petitioner was promoted as Controller (F&A) Class-I Gazetted in the pay scale of Rs. 13,500-16,800/- on regular basis on and with effect from 1st May, 2006, subsequently vide Annexure A-2 with effect from the same date he was appointed as Finance Officer in H.P. University (respondent No. 2) and notification to this effect is Annexure A-2.
On 4th May, 2006 the petitioner had joined as Finance Officer in the said University. It is alleged that his appointment as Finance Officer in the University was on regular basis and not on deputation/secondment.
According to the petitioner, he was appointed on regular basis in the University. On 30th April, 2008 at the age of 58 years he was superannuated and the grouse of the petitioner is that when he was appointed as Finance Officer on regular basis of the University then he should have been superannuated at the age of 60 years, as per notification dated 7th May, 1999 (Annexure A-10 Colly.)
The contention of the petitioner has been examined in the light of the relevant provisions and also reply filed by the respondents. The petitioner had also opted for the pay scale of the Finance Officer of the University which was declined to him. Thus vide communication Annexure A-8 dated 22nd July, 2006 he requested for his repatriation. Thus his appointment was on secondment. His contention that he was appointed on regular basis as alleged is wrong.
Further, the terms and conditions of secondment were finalized on 24th May, 2006 by the State and the petitioner had been accepting the same right from the day when he took over as Finance Officer of the respondent-University, he always remained as an employee of his parent Department, which inter alia provided superannuation at the age of 58. Thus, the petitioner being the State Government employee of respondent No. 1, was rightly superannuated at the age of 58 years. Further, the relief for his promotion can also not be granted to him as he did not have any right to be promoted on a higher post, but definitely he has a right to be considered for promotion if he falls in the zone of consideration; but this was not his case. Therefore, in the circumstances the petition lacks merit and also probity, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted, as such the petition is dismissed.