9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 936 - SC - Indian LawsPromotion under Time Bound Promotion Scheme (TBPS) - superannuated respondent - pay scale and designation of a Section Officer with effect from 05.03.1993 - pay scale and designation of an Executive Officer with effect from 05.03.2002 - direction to pay arrears of salary and emoluments to the respondent, as revised for the aforesaid scales from time to time - HELD THAT - It is required to be noted that the dispute is with respect to the promotion under the TBPS. An employee is entitled to the promotion under the TBPS only in accordance with the scheme and the promotion to the next higher post is provided under the TBPS. It is to be noted that, in the present case, the terms and conditions of the service of the employees of the appellant ICAI were governed by the settlements/agreements arrived at from time to time between ICAI and its Employees Association. The first settlement/agreement was arrived at on 10.01.1984 which, inter alia, provided for Time bound promotions/change to the next grade for its Class III and Class IV employees. It provided that if any LDC had already completed five years in the pay scale of ₹ 260400 he is to be placed in the pays cale of UDC Steno Typist i.e. ₹ 330560 and so on. Under Clause 1(v) of the said settlement/agreement, it was specifically provided that in respect of cases not falling under the two broad categories i.e. Clause III and Class IV, the decision was to be taken by the President of ICAI. This included the cases of Jamadar, Driver and Electrician. The employees of ICAI were governed by the memorandum of settlement dated 10.1.1984 so far as the timebound promotion is concerned and the subsequent settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991 were in continuation of the same. No new rights of promotion under the TBPS were conferred under the memorandum of settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991. The impugned judgment and order passed by Division Bench of the High Court directing the appellant to promote the respondent to the post of Assistant and thereafter to the post of Section Officer under the TBPS as per the memorandum of settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991 cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the respondent to promotion under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme (TBPS). 2. Applicability of various settlements and agreements regarding promotions. 3. Status and designation of the respondent during his tenure. 4. Payment of arrears and emoluments. Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement of the Respondent to Promotion under TBPS: The primary issue was whether the respondent, initially appointed as an Electrician, was entitled to promotions under the TBPS. The Supreme Court noted that promotions under TBPS must be in accordance with the scheme and agreements between the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and its Employees’ Association. The initial settlement dated 10.01.1984 specified that promotions were applicable to Class III and Class IV employees, with special categories like Electricians being governed by decisions of the ICAI President. The President's decision on 25.02.1984 limited Electricians to the next grade, not full promotions under TBPS. 2. Applicability of Various Settlements and Agreements: The respondent argued that subsequent settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991, which reduced the time span for promotions, did not specifically exclude Electricians from TBPS promotions. The Supreme Court found that the subsequent settlements only modified the time gap for promotions but did not alter the exclusion of Electricians from full TBPS promotions as per the 1984 settlement and the President's decision. Thus, the respondent was not entitled to promotions beyond the next grade. 3. Status and Designation of the Respondent During His Tenure: It was contended that the respondent had served in roles beyond an Electrician, such as in the Diary/Dispatch Section, and was thus entitled to promotions. The Court observed that there was no formal promotion order to the post of Section Officer. The respondent continued to be designated as an Electrician, and temporary assignments did not equate to a promotion. Additionally, the respondent himself identified as an Electrician during his transfer in 2005, reinforcing his status. 4. Payment of Arrears and Emoluments: The Division Bench of the High Court had directed the appellant to pay arrears and emoluments for the scales of Section Officer and Executive Officer. The Supreme Court overturned this, stating that the respondent was not entitled to such promotions. However, the Court directed that the respondent should be paid the salary equivalent to that of a Section Officer for the period he performed those duties, if not already paid. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed the Division Bench's judgment that had directed the promotion of the respondent to Section Officer and Executive Officer under TBPS. The Court upheld the original settlement and the President's decision, which limited the respondent's entitlement to the next grade. The appeal was allowed, and it was directed that the respondent be paid the salary of a Section Officer for the period he performed those duties. No costs were awarded.
|
