LexD. D. SURI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A • 24 D. D. SURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. July 17, 1979 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] Assignment of year of allotment-Indian Administrative Service (Regulation ~ of Seniority) Rules, 1954, Rule 3 read with "Open Market Emergency Recruit~ ment Scheme 'N' formula"-lnterjerence by Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia. C Fundamental Rules, F.R. 9(21)(b)-Concept of 'pay'-'"Pay" for purposes of determining the "co1npleted years of actual experience" under 'N' fotfnula does not include lodging allowauces and Calcutta compensatory allowance- Whetlier excluding these allowances offend Articles ·14 & 16 of the Constitution. Funda1nental Rule 49-Combination of posts and right to additional pay, applicahility of, to officers, governed by Indian Administratil~e Service (Pay) D Rules 1954, Rule 13, E F G B "Next Below Rule'', principle of-Applicability of b~nefit under F.R. 30(1) -Super-time scale of Indian Administrative Sen•ice. The appellant was boro on January 7, 1915. He joined the Editorial Staff of the Civil and Military Gazette, Lahore, towards the end of 1938 and continued to serve the Civil and Military Gazette upto January 7, 1943, when he joined the Army. During th'e Second World War be was granted an Emergency Commission in the Army w.e.f. March 7, 1943 with the rank of Lieutenant w.e.f. June 3, 1948 but with seniority in that rank w.e.f. September 1944. Later, Ire, having been selected by the Special Recruitment Board as an Emergency Recruit from the "open market" was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service on August 7, 1950 and allocated to the Orissa Cadre. As regards Emergency Recruits from the open market the year of allotment was to be determined according to the "open Market Emergency Recruitment Scheme" called also 'N' formula. The year of allotment in each cas'e would be 1949-Y, where Y = Ni + t of N2. N11 means the period of previous experience. The previous experience is the number of completed years of actual experience of th'e officers after attaining the age of 25 and upto 31st December, 1948 as certified by the Special Recruitment Board. N1 means. the period of continuous. employment on a pay or income of not less than of Rs. 800/- per month before 31ot December, 1944 and the 31st Dec'ember 1948, inclusive. The larger the figufe of "Y", the earlier the date of allotment and seniority. Th'e period of previous experience (N2) in the case of the appellant worked out to 8 years 11 months 25 days rounded off to 8 years (i.e. 7-1-40 to 31-12-48). The figure of N• was worked out taking the ''protection pay" admissible to Army Officers as per F.R. 9 (21 )(b) i.e. excluding the Calcutta .. > ., D. D. SURI V. UNION 25 comp'ensator)' allowance and lodging allo\vance. Therefore, by its letter dated A June 11, 1952, the Ministry of Home Affairs fixed the year of allotment of the petitioner to the Indian Administrative Service as 1944. ( 1949 minus 5). The appellant held various posts in the Indian Civil Administrative Servic'e cadre of Orissa and was also on deputation to the Government of India from 1952 to April 7, 1964. During this period, he was appointed as the Salt Commissioner and 1-lanagi1.1g Director, Hindllstan Salt Ltd, with Head- B quarter at Jaipur. He h'eld both these posts from September 11, 1953 to December 23, 1963, a.nd only as Salt Commissioner till April 7, 1964, where- after he was reverted to the State of Orissa. I-le was compulsorily retired by the Governm·ent on June 9, 1971. By its order dated September 1, 1977. the State Government gave him pay and allowances in the super-time scale from November 29, 1967 to April 24, 1968 and thereafter selection grade from April 15, 1968 to June 9, 1971. Respondent 1 rejected his representa.- C tion (a) for refixing his year of allotment by condoning the shortage of 6 days in determining Nz and by taking into consideration allowances for pur- poses of Ni (b) for granting the bcllefit of F.R. 49 and (c) for granting the benefit under F.R, 30, The appellant, therefore, filed a ·writ petition to the High Court cla.iming three reliefs, namely, (a) Refixation of the year of allotment as 1942 instead of 1944 in the Indian Administrative Service, alleging that by refusing to treat th'e Calcutta compensatory allowance and lodging allowance as pay under FR 9 (21 )(b) and to condone the six days' shortage in determining the nu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.