LexDR. V.P. MALIK AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A DR. V.P. MALIK AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA DECEMBER 8, 1995 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] S e1Vice Law : Time bound promotion--Recommendation-CommiUee Reporl-lm- C plementation of-Delay of One year-Delay affected Petitioners financially and their seniority, and that cut off date was arbitrary and on facts resulted in discrimination between officers off the same grade-Plea of writ petitioners:- Held, time lag justified and reasonable, the committee report being recommendatory in nature, decision was required to be taken-Ap- prehension of discrimination not real as promotion as a mauer of rule can D be effective only from a prospective date. Tikoo Committee report, recommending the teaching specialists to be placed in the grdde of Rs. 4500-5700 after 4 years of granting of scale of Rs. 3700-5000, doing away with the distinction between the functional E and non-functional grade, was submitted on 31.10.1990; office Memoran· dum in this regard was issued on 14.11.1991 and it was Implemented on 1.12.91. In the memorandum of Settlement, Associate professors in the Scale of Rs. 3700-5000 was to be placed on scale of Rs. 4500-5700 on the F completion of 6 years of regular service as Associate professor or 8 years of combined service as Assistant Professor and Associate Professor, Petitioners, members of teaching specialist sub-cadre of the central health service, filed a writ petition challenging the cut-off date as arbitrary contending that the delay in implementing the recommendation deprived G them of financial benefits and their seniority, further contending that the cut off date resulted in discrimination between the officers of the same grade, apprehending that the seniors who got promoted to the 'Non Functional Selection Grade' and were redesignated as Professor w.e.f. 1.12.1991, in most cases would get promotion to the post of professor after H serving much longer, to the feeder grade, while those junior to the 334 V.P.MALIK v. U.0.1. 335 Petitioners considered for promotion after 1.12.1991 would get it on com- A pletion of 8 years of combined service. the stand of the Respondent was that office memorandum could be issued oil 14.11.1991 incorporating decision of Govt relating to various recommendations and the benefit was made available from the first date of ensuing month, This court in i.A. on 17.10.94 passed the order that any promotion made during the pendency of the writ petition, would abide by the result of the petition. Dismissing the Writ Petition, this Conrt IiELD : 1. the period of one year taken to finally come to a decision has to be regarded as reasonable. The time lag Is not nnjustified becanse B c the recommendations being many in number, invoking huge financial implications and needing sorting out of some service problems. The Tikoo D Committee report being recommendatory in nature, a decision was re- quired to be taken as to which of the recommendations could be accepted and which not. [337-F, 337-D] 2. The cot off date of 1.12.91 is far from arbitrary and whimsical; it is really reasonable. It has not been picked out from a hat, but is founded E on logic; the date having been fixed because of the Issuance of the office Memorandnm containing the decisions of the Government on the Tikoo Committee recommendations on 14.11.1991. [337-C] D.R. Nim v. Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 325; Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal, [1994] 4 SCC 212; Louisville Gas & Electric Com- pany v. Cleu Coleman, 277 US 32 and Union of India v. Paremeswaran Matchwork, (1975) 1 SCC 305, referred to. 3. The apprehension of discrimination is more imaginary than real. F The order dated 1.10.1994 adei1uately takes care of the apprehension. G Promotion as a matter of rule can be effective only from prospective date and the recommendation of Tlkko Committee is more beneficial than the one which was part of the memorandum of settlement. (339-B, 338-E-G) CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 683 of 1990. I-I 336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) Rajinder Sachar, N.N. Goswami, Dr. A.K. Singhvi, R.P. Singh, Ajit Pudussery, shailendra Bhardwaj, T.C. Sharma; D.S. Mehra and K. Swami for the appearing parties. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HANSARIA, J. The petitioners are members of the teaching specialist sub-cadre of the Central Health Service under the Minist
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.