INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA versus J.R. WILLIAM SINGH

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 464 · Decided: 24-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
464
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
OF INDIA
v.
J.R. WILLIAM SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 200 of 2020)
JANUARY 24, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law – Higher Scale and designation – Time bound
promotion – claim for- The respondent was appointed as an
‘Electrician’ – A settlement dated 10.01.1984 was reached between
the appellant – institute and its Employees’ Association with respect
to time bound promotions/ change to the next grade – According to
the appellant, the said settlement was not applicable to Jamadar,
Drivers, Gestetner operators, Electricians etc. – However, in light
of Cl. 1(v) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10.01.1984, a
decision was taken to provide Jamadar, Drivers, Gestetner
operators, electricians etc. the next grade – Thereafter, in another
memorandum of settlement dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991 the
only change was with respect to the time gap for promotion under
the earlier settlement deed dated 10.01.1984 and the period for
getting the promotion under the TBPS was reduced – According to
respondent, he was entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant
and thereafter to the post of section officer – Writ petition – The
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition – However,
the Division Bench of the High court directed the appellant to grant
the respondent promotion under the TBPS as per memorandum of
settlement dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991 – On appeal, held: In
the memorandum of settlement dated 02.08.1988, it was specifically
provided that except for and subject to the changes made by the
said settlement, namely, reduction of time period for getting the
promotion under the TBPS, all other terms and conditions relating
to the TBPS, as contained in the settlement/ agreement dated
10.01.1984, shall remain in force and be applicable during the
period of the said agreement – By a subsequent settlement dated
15.06.1991 the period was further reduced – Whatever, was stated/
provided in the settlement/agreement dated 10.01.1984 and in Cl.
   [2020] 2 S.C.R. 464
464
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
465
(1)(v) continued to be in operation – Therefore, those employees
like the respondent serving as Electricians etc. were not entitled to
any promotion under the TBPS, as contained in the settlement/
agreement dated 10.01.1984 and such subsequent memorandum of
settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991 – The respondent was
already given the Pay-scale of an Assistant as per Cl. 1(v) of the
memorandum by the decision dated 25.02.1984 of the President of
Employees Association – Therefore, the High Court committed grave
error in observing and holding that the respondent shall be entitled
to promotion under the TBPS as per the memorandum of settlements
dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held : 1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the
dispute is with respect to the promotion under the TBPS.  An
employee is entitled to the promotion under the TBPS only in
accordance with the scheme and the promotion to the next higher
post is provided under the TBPS.  It is to be noted that, in the
present case, the terms and conditions of the service of the
employees of the appellant-ICAI were governed by the
settlements/agreements arrived at from time to time between
ICAI and its Employees’ Association.   The first settlement/
agreement was arrived at on 10.01.1984 which, inter alia, provided
for Time-bound promotions/change to the next grade for its Class
III and Class IV employees.  It provided that if any LDC had
already completed five years in the pay-scale of Rs.260-400 he is
to be placed in the pay-scale of UDC-Steno Typist i.e. Rs.330-
560 and so on. Under Clause 1(v) of the said settlement/
agreement, it was specifically provided that in respect of cases
not falling under the two broad categories i.e. Clause III and
Class IV, the decision was to be taken by the President of ICAI.
This included the cases of Jamadar, Driver and Electrician. The
respondent was an Electrician and therefore he was governed
under Clause 1(v) of the settlement dated 10.01.1984.  In terms
of Clause 1(v) of the settlement/agreement dated 10.10.1984
which was arrived at between ICAI and its Employees’
Association, the President of ICAI took a decision on 25.02.1984,
by which it was provided that Jamadars, Drivers, Electricians
etc., as mentioned in Clause 1(v) of the memorandum of settlement
THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUN

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