P.U. JOSHI AND ORS. versus THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, AHMEDABAD AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 19-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

P.U. JOSHI AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, AHMEDABAD AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 19, 2002 
(DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.) 
B 
Service law: 
Department of Indian Audit and Accounts-Promotion-Supervisor 
claiming promotion to cadre of Assistant Accounts Officer-On the ground C 
that pay-scales of Supervisors and S.Os. are identical and duties and 
responsibilities ofSupervisors/S.Os.IA.A.Os. are similar-Various Tribunals 
rejecting the claim of persons similarly placed-However, one of the Tribunals 
allowing the same-Cross Appeals-Held, claimants cannot be promoted as 
A.A.Os since they have not acquired the qualification of passing Section D 
Officers grade examination and got promoted to the post of Section Officers 
and put in three years regular service-Tribunal which allowed the claim 
erred in doing so. 
Framing/changing of rules relating to services-Statutory Tribunals/ 
State Government-Jurisdiction-Held, Tribunal cannot direct the Government E 
to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues 
of promotion or impose its views on .the State Government. 
Various cadres of establishment in Indian Audit and Accounts 
Department relating to the office of the Accountant Generals in the States 
were bifurcated into AG (Accounts & Entitlement) and AG (Audit). Prior to F 
bifurcation, posts of Supervisors, Selection Grade Supervisors as well as 
Section Officers and Selection Grade Section Officers existed separately. 
Section Off!cers were considered senior to Supervisors and promotion to 
higher posts of Accounts Officers was open to Section Officers only and not 
to Supervisors. Afler bifurcation, there was no cadre of Supervisors in the G 
Audit Wing, the existing staff of Supervisors were not allowed to switch over 
to the Audit office. Option was given to such of those who desired to get 
reverted to Audit Offices. Appellants who were in the combined establishment. 
chose to remain with A & E Office. Recommendations of Fourth Central Pay 
Commission were implemented. 'Selection Grades' were abolished from all 
573 
H 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A non-gazetted cadres in all Departments of Government of India all over the 
country, including the Department of IA & AD. Pay scales were brought on 
par in both the offices with eligibility criteria on same lines. There was no 
cadre of Supervisors in Audit stream but only the cadre of Section Officers/ 
Assistant Audit Officers--<:adre of qualified hands alone existed, the criteria 
B of passing SOG Examination to get into the pay-scale of Assistant Accounts 
Officers. Then the existing Selection Grade Supervisors, who were already 
holding the higher scale of post identical to Assistant Accounts Officers cadre, 
were allowed to continue in that scale treating their pay as "personal pay" to 
them. Appellants-Supervisors in the office of A & E claimed that since pay-
scales of Supervisors and S.Os. are identical and duties and responsibilities 
C ofSupervisors/S.OsJA.A.Os. arc similar, they should also be given promotion 
as S.G. Supervisors or Assistant Accounts Officers. Tribunal rejected the 
claim. The claim of persons similarly placed was also rejected. However, 
Tribunal at Cuttack allowed the claim of persons similarly placed. Hence the 
present cross appeals. 
D 
Appellants-private parties contended that their service rights are to be 
governed by the rules relating to their service as on the date of bifurcation 
on 3.1.1984 and that the rules and the service conditions cannot be altered to 
their detriment by the subsequent rules; that appellants, working as 
Supervisors, are also performing duties that are discharged by Assistant 
E Accounts Officers and they would, therefore, be entitled to the scale of pay of 
A.A.Os on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'; and that there was 
denial of promotional prospects to the category of Supervisors. 
Union of India and the Department contended that in the light of the 
statutory rules made after bifurcation governing the recruitment to the posts 
F of Assistant Accounts Officers, one should pass the Section Officers Grade 
Examination and inasmuch as appellants and persons similarly placed in other 
States have not got qualified themselves by passing SOG Examination, they 
are ineligible to be considered for promotion as A.A.Os.; that the right of 
Government to bifurcate departments and suitably restructure them in the 
interest of better admini

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