SH. N.K. SHARMA
v.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT,
SHIMLA AND ORS.
MAY 1, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]
Service Law:
A
B
Work-charge employee under Government of Himachal C
Pradesh--Regularised and Promoted in regular cadre-Rationalisation of pay
scale and promotional avenues of work-charge employees-Claim for higher
scale of pay under rationalisation scheme-c-Held, since the employee was in
a lower scale of pay in the work charge establishment than was mentioned in
the rationalisation scheme he cannot claim higher scale of pay or promotional
post on par with erstwhile work-charge employees.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7249 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.94 of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court in C.W.P. No. 435 of 1992.
Mrs. Chandan Ramamurthi for the Appellant.
B. Datta and S.B. Upadhyay for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
E
F
This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh made on 9.12.1994 in C.W.P. No. 435/92. The
appellant was initially appointed a' a Store Munshi on 4.10.71 in the
work-charged establishment. Later, he had two promotions, last of them
being Stor.e Keeper in the regular cadre on December 31, 1980 in the G
pay-scale of Rs. 260-430 w.e.f. 1.1.1981. He was later promoted on 1.1.1986
in the grade of Rs. 330-560. Subsequently, by virtue of negotiation with the
Union, the pay-scales and the promotional avenues of the work charged
employees, who could not get promotion, were rationalised and by
modified scheme dated September 5, 1988, the respondents had adopted H
241
242
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
rationalisation scheme and the scales of pay. Para (b) of the scheme
envisages that although appointment to the regular cadre will he effective
from the date of such appointment, service rendered in work charged posts
in the same pos\ and scale of pay will count towards inter-se seniority in
the regular cadre for the purpose of promotion to next higher scale of pay
B subject to line of promotion being available.
It is not in dispute that the appellant earlier was promoted on
selection and became a regular employee. Though the work charged
employees who could not become the regular employees have the benefit
of rationalisation scheme referred to hereinbcfore, since the appellant was
C
in a lower scale of pay in the work-charged establishment that was men-
tioned in the rationalisation scheme, he cannot claim the higher scale of
pay or promotional post on par with his erstwhile juniors/workcharged
employees. The High Court, therefore, has rightly pointed out that though
the appellant is entitled to count his service rendered as workcharged
•
employee for the purpose of seniority and promotion, as far as the grade
D seniority is concerned, he cannot get the same benefit as he was appointed
in the grade of Rs. 260-350 on September 1, 1973 and regularised w.c.f.
l.1.1981 in the scale of Rs. 260-430 which is lower pay-scale than what was
rationalised. Under these circumstance, we do not find any illegality in the
order passed by the High Court.
E
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No. costs.
R.P.
Appeal dismissed.
Lex