ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. versus M. A. HAI AZAMI AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 10-12-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANDHRA PRADESH STAIB ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. 
v. 
B 
M. A. HAI AZAMI AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 10, 1991 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHEITY, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JI.] 
· Civil Services 
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order, 1975-l'aragraph 6-
C Scope of-Emplpyee of Government Departmenl-Deputed to State Electric-
ity Board-Put in charge of a post different from the caare in which deputed 
but salary for that p0st denied-Jurisdiction and power of State Administrative 
Tribunal to entertain claim and grant relief. 
Respondent No.1, an Upper Division Clerk in one of the Government 
D departments, was deputed to the appellant State Electricity Board. There 
be was placed in charge of the post of Accountant, but was only given pay 
and allowances of Upper Division Clerk. His Claim that be was entitled to 
be promoted as Accountant with pay admissible to that post, was rejected 
by the Board. Hence the appellant filed a suit for damages for loss or 
E regular pay of Accountant's post. 
The Andbra Pradesh Service Tribunal, to which the suit was trans-
ferred, rejected the appellant-Board's objection that the respondent was 
not holding a public post under the Board, and that the Tribunal bad no 
jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding against it with regard to the 
F 
condition of service of persons on deputation. It held that the Tribunal's 
jurisdiction extended to a public post and the conditions of service of a 
person holding such a post and it did not depend upon the character of the 
party against which the relief was claimed, that once it was established 
that the person was holding a public post, and the relief claimed was in 
respect of his service conditions, then the question whether he was seeking 
G a remedy against the Government or against any other authority, or both 
was immaterial, and since the repondent was a Government servant, it 
had jurisdiction to consider his claim, even though be was working on 
deputation in the Board. Accordingly, after examining merits of the 
matter, it decreed the respondent's claim. 
H 
Hence the appeal by the State Electricity Board. Disposing of the 
appeal, this Court, 
298 
A.P. ELECTRICITY BOA.RD v. HAI AZAMI 
299 
HELD: 1.1 The first part of paragraph (6) or the Artdhra Pradesh 
A 
Administrative Tribunal Order, 1975, deals with tbe exclusive jurisdic-
tion, power and authority of the Tribunal. The second part excludes the 
jurisdiction o_r the Tribunal in relation to persons specified under (a) to (e) 
mentioned thereunder. [301 G-H, 302 A] 
1.2 Clause (c) or sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph (6) or the Order B 
refers to persons in the service of the Central Government or any other 
State Government or other authority serving on deputation with the State 
Government or any local authority. It does not cover a Government 
servant of the local State on deputation with any other authority in the 
same State. The respondent, being a Government servant or the same 
State, is therefore not covered by clause (c). [302 B] 
C 
1.3 There are two requirements for the Tribunal to have the juris-
diction: (i) the relief sought must be with respect to appointment, allot-
ment or promotion to any public post, (ii) seniority or persons appointed, 
allotted or promoted to the public post and all other conditions or the 
service of such person. It is essential that the relief must be in relation to D 
entitlement to any public post or to the conditions of service or persons 
occupying the public post. If the relief claimed is unconnected with the 
public post and independent or service conditions thereof, the Tribunal 
will have no jurisdiction to deal with such claim. [302 C-DJ 
1.4 In the instant case, the respondent no doubt occupied a public 
post in his parent department, but he did not seek relief relatable to that 
post. He claimed salary admissible to the promotional post or the Account-
ant in the Board, and damages representing loss accrued to him by denial 
E 
of salary of the post of Accountant in the Board. He was not entitled to the 
post of Accountant nor the salary admissible to him by the conditions of F 
service available to him in his parent department. His promotion as 
Accountant, or put it more appropriately as Accountant-in-charge was 
not given to him on the basis that he was entitled to that post on the next 
below rule in his parent department. The Tribunal, therefore, has no 
jurisdiction to entertain his claim. [302 E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.