L. RAJAIAH versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, HYDERABAD AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 136 · Decided: 05-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
L. RAJAIAH 
v. 
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, 
HYDERABAD AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 5, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Service Law : 
C 
A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules-Rule 34(b)(ii)--Promo-
tion-Seniority-cum-fitness--l'enalty of stoppage of increments-During the 
period of penalty, the official is not entitled to be considered for promotion 
as he was under disability undergoing punishment-However after the period 
of punishment, he is entitled to be considered for promotion. 
D 
CIVIL APJ>ELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3349 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.8.94 of the Andhra Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 7580of1992. 
, E 
A.D.N. Rao for the Appellant. 
K. Ram Kumar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
Leave granted. 
The appellant was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Registration . 
and Stamps Department in the Warangal District of AP. in 1978. Respon-
dent Nos. 4 and 5 were juniors to his as Junior Assistants. The appellant 
was promoted temporarily as Senior Assistant on October 23, 1989. But 
G when his seniors were reverted, he had given place to them. In G.O.M.S. 
No. 378 on March 30, 1991 two posts of Senior Assistant were created and 
respondents No. 4 and 5 were appointed to those posts but the appellant 
was not coiisidered and was thus denied the appointment. Consequently, 
he filed an application in the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order 
H dated August 5, 1994 made in O.A. No. 7580/92 while holdirig that the 
136 
--
--
L. RAJAIAH v. INSPECTOR GEN OF REGN. AND STAMPS 
137 
appellant was not entitled to the promotion from the date on which his A 
immediate juniors were promoted, directed the respondents to consider his 
case for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant as per the rules and 
eligibility. Calling in question the said orders this appeal by special has 
· been filed. 
Shri AD.N. Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended B 
that stoppage of increment is not a penalty for promotion. Under Rule 
34(b)(ii) of the AP. State & Subordinate Service Rules, if promotion is 
withheld as a penalty, the appellant became ineligible only for promotion. 
Stoppage of increment is not a penalty by way of promotion. Under AP. 
Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, various types of penalties have C 
been prescribed. Penalty by way of promotion is one of the punishments 
imposed. Therefore, the respondents cannot deny the promotion to the 
appellant. Though prima facie, the argument is plausible, it is difficult to 
accept the same. Rule 34(b )(ii) itself clearly indicates that promotion 
would be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. The Rule reads as D 
under: 
"Promotion to non-selection category or grade notwithstanding 
anything contained in Special Ad hoc Rules and promotions to 
Non-section category or grade shall subject to the provisions of 
Rule 16, be made in accordance with the seniority- cum-fitness E 
unless promotion of a member has been withheld as a penalty." 
A reading thereof dearly indicates that notwithstanding anything 
contained in special ad hoc rules all promotions to non-selection category 
or grade shall, subject to the provisions of Rule 16, may be made in 
p 
accordance with seniority-cum-fitness unless promotion of a Member has 
been withheld as a penalty. Though due to stoppage of increment, he is 
not ineligible for consideration for promotion, he is otherwise entitled to 
be considered in accordance with the Rules, namely, seniority-cum-fitness. 
However, when seniority-cum-fitness is the criteria, the imposition of the 
penalties for one year on 1.3.1988 and in another enquiry, stoppage of G 
increment for five years from 1.3.1989, i.e., till 28.2.1994, disentitled him to 
be considered; so he had did not regain fitness for consideration for 
promotion as he was under disability undergoing punishment. Consequent-
ly, when the promotion to the post of Senior Assistant is on the basis of 
merit and ability under special rules, fitness is une of the considerations H 
138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A for the purpose. Since he was undergoing punishment during the relevant 
period, he is not eligible for consideration for promotion. Therefore, his 
juniors have stolen march over the appellant as Senior Assistants. He 
cannot thereby have any grievance. However, he is entitled to be con-
sidered for promotion acco
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.