9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Proper construction of Rule 50(b) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules; Justiciability of the complaint by the appellant; Interpretation of circular of the Government of Bombay dated October 31, 1950; Enforceability of administrative instructions on Government servants; Breach of statutory rule as a cause of action for a Government servant; Entitlement of a Government servant after reversion from deputation to a higher post and salary; Legal rights of a Government servant regarding promotions after reversion from deputation; Equivalence of service in parent and deputation departments under Rule 50(b). Analysis: The case involved a dispute over the proper construction of Rule 50(b) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. The respondent, a Government servant, was reverted to his parent department after serving on deputation and claimed entitlement to a higher post and salary based on the rule. The appellant raised a preliminary objection on the justiciability of the complaint, relying on a circular of the Government of Bombay. The circular was considered an administrative instruction, which was found to be based on a statutory rule, Rule 50(b), by the Full Bench. The High Court allowed the writ petition, granting the relief sought by the respondent, who had retired by then, concerning remuneration entitlement under the rule. The appellant contended that Rule 50(b) entitled the respondent to only increments applicable to his substantive appointment at the time of transfer back from deputation. However, the Court rejected this contention, emphasizing that the rule aimed to restore the position the respondent would have held in his parent department had he not been deputed. The Court highlighted the circular's role in clarifying this restoration principle. Additionally, the appellant argued that the respondent had no legal right to automatic promotion to a higher post after reversion. The Court disagreed, explaining that service equivalence in both departments under Rule 50(b) justified promotions based on seniority-cum-merit, ensuring fair treatment for officers on deputation. The judgment affirmed that breach of a statutory rule related to service conditions could provide a cause of action for a Government servant under Article 309 or 313. The Court rejected the appellant's contentions, upholding the respondent's entitlement to a higher post and salary upon reversion from deputation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision in favor of the respondent.
|
