AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.V. Maruthi, J.—This writ appeal is preferred by the Director, Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine and Deputy Director In-charge, against the judgment of the learned single Judge directing them to give the benefit of office memorandum dated 13-9-1991 with effect from 1-4-1991 to the second respondent. As far as the first respondent is concerned, the learned Judge thought it not necessary to give any relief in view of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1501/1994 allowing the claim of the first respondent to be promoted as Radiographer.
The first respondent was working as Dark room Assistant and the second respondent was working as security in-charge-cum-care taker in the appellants'' organisation since 1974. The posts held by them were upgraded and they were granted scales of pay in the upgraded posts. However, by an office order dated 22-9-1993, the orders of upgradation were cancelled. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the upgradation, both the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 17188 of 1993 out of which the present writ appeal arises.
The first petitioner (sic. respondent) also filed a Writ Petition No. 1501 of 1994 seeking relief of promotion to the post of Radiographer on various grounds. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to promote him as Radiographer with effect from 1-4-1991. Aggrieved by the said judgment the appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 1064 of 1996.
We heard the writ appeal and allowed the same setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to promote the first respondent to the post of Radiographer.
Both the respondents in the writ petition contended that the cancellation of upgradation of their posts is without notice and, therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. Secondly they also sought for the benefit of Office Memorandum dated 13-9-1991 issued by the Government. The learned Single Judge did not grant the relief and refused to set aside the order of cancellation of upgradation of posts held by the respondents on the ground that the posts were upgraded by the Head of the Institution irregularly.
As far as the first respondent is concerned, the learned Judge observed that since the appellants are directed to promote him to the post of Radiographer, it is not necessary to give the benefit of the Office Memorandum to the first respondent. Therefore, he had not given the benefit of the Office Memorandum to the first respondent. As regards the second respondent, the learned Judge directed the appellants to give the benefit of Office Memorandum with effect from 1-4-1991.
The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that under the Office Memorandum dated 13-9-1991, a scheme was introduced to provide promotional grades/posts to the persons who are stagnated, and the scheme is applicable to Group-''C and ''D'' employees whose pay on appointment to such a post is fixed at the minimum of the scale and the employees who have not been promoted on regular basis even after one year on reaching the maximum of the scale of such post. Under the scheme the Administrative Ministry/Department will have to identify the posts which have no promotional grade in the Ministry/Department or organisations and furnish the information relating to designation, scale of pay, recruitment qualifications, duties and responsibilities attached to each such post along with suggestion for suitable promotional scale based on comparable promotional grades generally available for the posts of that level to the Financial Adviser concerned. The Financial Advisers after scrutiny will take up the matter with the Ministry of Finance for prescribing suitable promotional grades on an over all considerations in each such case.
Therefore, the direction given by the learned Judge to give the benefit of Office Memorandum dated 13-9-1991 cannot be sustained as under the scheme the Administrative Ministry has to furnish the necessary particulars to the Finance Ministry which is the competent authority to provide the promotional grades.
We have already referred to the contents of the Office Memorandum. It imposes an obligation on the Administrative Ministry to identify posts in ''C and ''D'' groups and suggest promotional avenues to those employees covered by Office Memorandum and take up the matter with the Finance Ministry for prescribing suitable promotional grades.
No material is placed before us by the appellants whether the Administrative Ministry has taken any steps to implement the Office Memorandum dated 13-9-1991. Though the concerned Administrative Ministry is not made a party to this Writ petition, in the interest of justice we direct the appellants to represent before the Administrative Ministry to take necessary steps for implementing the Office Memorandum if not already implemented. On such steps being taken, the appellants may consider the case of the respondents provided they become eligible for promotion pursuant to the implementation of Office Memorandum dated 13-9-1991. If the Administrative Ministry had already implemented the Office Memorandum dated 13-9-1991 and formulated promotional policy and grades, the appellants are directed to consider the case of the respondents if they are eligible for such considerations. We direct the appellants to complete the exercise within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and pass appropriate orders.
With the above direction, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.