BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS versus S.K. KANOJIA

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 574 · Decided: 05-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS 
v. 
S.K. KANOJIA 
OCTOBER 5, 2007 
B 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDTARUNCHATTERJEE,JJ.] 
.. 
~ 
' 
-.... 
Service Law: 
c 
Bureau of Indian Standards (Recruitment to Scientific Cadre) 
Regulations, 1988-Regulation 9-Promotion-Under 'Flexible 
Complementing Scheme-Amendment of Scheme in 1998-
Amendment adopted by the employer· in 2002-Promotion given as 
per 1998_ amendment-Writ Petition claiming promotion on the basis 
D of unamended-Scheme-Courts below directing promotion on the 
basis of unamended Scheme o-n the ground that at the time when the 
\-
promotions fell due, amended rules did not exist-On appeal, held: 
Employees not entitled to promotion under the unamended Scheme-
The amendment having been given immediate effect to by the 
E Notification of the date prior to the date the promotions fell due as 
per unamened Scheme, view of courts below not correct-Bureau of 
Indian Standards Act, 1986-s. 38. 
'Flexible Complementary Scheme' (FCS), introduced in 1983/1986 .. 
~ 
F was adopted by the appellant-Bureau inJ996 after recommendation of 
Fifth Central Pay Commission. By a Notification dated 9.11.1998 
changes were introduced in the FCS whereby benefit ofFCS was based 
on scientific and technical knowledge; and eligibility for promotion was 
increased to 7 years from 5 years. The benefit of FCS was also extended 
G to Scientist 'F' and 'G' thereby. The Bureau implemented the change 
r-
by amending Regulation 9 of Bureau oflndian Standards (Recruitment 
to Scientific Cadre) Regulations, 1988 in 2002. The benefit thereunder 
was to be given w .e.f. 9.11.1998. Respondents were working as Scientist 
'C' w.e.f1994, in the pay-scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200 in the Bureau. They 
H 
574 
I 
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS v. S.K. KANOJIA 
575 
were promoted under FCS in 2003 w.e.f. 2001. They filed Writ Petition A 
on the ground that they were to be promoted as Scientist-Don completion 
of 5 years i.e. in 1999. The Bureau attributed the delay in promotion, to 
the change in Service Regulations. During pend ency of the petition, 
another Notification was issued in 2004, again amending Regulation 9 
whereby a bar against retrospective implementation of the Scheme was B 
introduced. Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions holding that the 
petitioners (respondents herein) had become entitled to promotion as 
Scientist 'D' in 1999 and at that time Rules to the contrary did not exist 
Division Bench of High Court held that the amendment of2004 being 
prospective in its operation was not applicable to the employees. The C 
order of Single Judge was upheld. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal; the Court 
HELD: Single Judge of High Court was not right in holding that in 
1999 the respondents had become eligible for promotion to Grade 'D' D 
and at that time rules to the contrary did not exist, overlooking the fact 
that in 1998 itself amendment had been bro~ght, in the prevailing 
Flexible Complementing Scheme on the basis of1998 Notification and 
not under Bureau of Indian Standards (Recruitment to Scientific Cadre) 
Regulations, 1988. Clause 3 of Notification dated 9.11.1998 goes to show E 
that it was intend_ed to give immediate effect to the decision. The revised 
scheme of 1998 shows the assessment norms for promotion. Definite 
focus was on evaluation of scientific and technical knowledge. U oder 
the revised scheme the respondents became eligible for promotion on 
completion of7years of service. Undisputedly, the Regulations of1988 F 
in Regulation 9 provided that the benefit of FCS was available upto 
Scientists grade 'E '.It was therefore necessary to amend the Regulation 
so that the Scientists grade "F' and 'G' could be given the benefit of 
FCS. Single Judge was also not correct in directing promotion because 
promotion is not automatic and the Annual Confidential Reports had to G 
be looked into. Regulation 9 provided that the promotion of selected 
officers under the FCS was to be on the basis of evaluation from "time 
to time". That being so, the Single Judge and the Division Bench were 
not correct in their views. The change in 2004 does not in any way cover 
H 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A the respondents. [Paras 17, 20, 21and22] [584-E-F; 585-E-H; 586-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4657 of 
2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 6.2.2006 of the High Court 
B of Delhi at New Delhi in LP.A. No. 1689/2005. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 4658, 4659 and 466
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.