Satish Kumar and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

A.K. Sikri, C.J.—Petitioners in this case joined the PWD (B&R) department of the State of Punjab on 20.2.1981 and 13.7.1969 respectively. At the relevant time, in the year 1995, when they filed the present petition, they were working as Senior Clerk and Senior Assistant respectively. The next promotion from the post of Senior Assistant is to the post of Superintendent Grade-IV/Divisional Superintendent. Earlier the persons working against the post of Superintendent Grade-IV/Divisional Superintendent could be promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-III/Circle Superintendent. However, in the year 1995, the posts of Divisional Superintendent and Circle Superintendent were merged and both the posts were given the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500. In fact, it was an improvement upon the pay scales which are given to the Divisional Superintendent and Circle Superintendent which were earlier known as Superintendent Grade-in and Superintendent Grade-IV and after merger, all of them became Superintendent Grade-II. The petitioners in this petition have prayed for grant of one increment to the senior most person who is given the duties of Circle Superintendent. Reference is made to the Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Volume I, Part I, which reads as under:--

4.4 The initial substantive pay of a Government employee who is appointed substantively to a post on a time scale of pay is regulated as follows:--

(a) If he holds a lien on a permanent post, other than a tenure post, or would hold a lien on such a post, had his lien not been suspended;

(i) When appointment to the new post involves the assumption of duties or responsibilities of greater importance (as interpreted for the purposes of Rule 4.13) than those attaching to such permanent post, he will draw as initial pay the stage of the time scale next above his substantive pay in respect of" the old post;

(ii) When appointment to the new post does not involve such assumption, he will draw as initial pay the stage of the time scale which is equal to his substantive pay in respect of the old post, or, if there is no such stage, the stage next below that pay plus personal pay equal to the difference, and in either case will continue to draw that pay until such time as he would have received an increment in the time scale of the old post or for the period after which an increment is earned in the time scale of the new post, whichever is less. But if the minimum of the time scale of the new post is higher than his substantive pay in respect of the old post he will draw that minimum as initial pay;

(iii) When appointment to the new post is made on his own request under Rule 3.17(a) and maximum pay in the time scale of the post is less than his substantive pay in respect of the old post, he will draw that maximum as initial pay.

However, this prayer is totally misconceived. It is rightly pointed out by the respondents in the reply that after the merger of Superintendent Grade-III and Superintendent Grade-IV into Superintendent Grade-II and when all these persons are getting the same pay, the question of giving higher responsibility to the senior most person for the same post would not arise. Provisions of Rule 4.4 will not apply in such circumstance.

It is interesting to note that at the time of filing the petition, the petitioners were not even working as Superintendent and they were only working as Senior Clerk and Senior Assistant respectively and, therefore, there was no cause to ask for such a review.

The petitioners have also submitted that with the merger of the cadres, their chances of promotion have decreased. This is again a strange argument. As pointed out above, with the merger of cadres of Superintendent Grade-III and Superintendent Grade-IV, those who are working as Superintendent Grade-III and Superintendent Grade-IV have become Superintendent Grade-II and, therefore, are given better grade and emoluments. Even otherwise, chances of promotion is not a condition of service. This petition is accordingly dismissed.