SHISH RAM AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 771 · Decided: 19-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SHISH RAM AND ORS. 
'A 
v. 
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. 
JULY 19, 1996 
[DR. K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: A1tic/e 309. 
Se1vice Law-Promotion-State of Himachal Pradesh Class II 
Gazetted posts-Head Clerks and Accountants-Pay scale of fonner lower 
than that of /atteJ-Creation of posts of Assistants with higher pay scale by 
B 
c 
an Executive OrdeJ"-Grant of higher scale to Head Clerks under statut01y 
111/es than that of Acco~ntants-Promotions of Accountants and Head Clerks 
fused togetheJ~Rtdes making Accountants and Head Clerks eligible for 
promotion as Supe1intcnde11t-Creation of gazetted Class II post by Govcm-
ment-Eligibility to such posts confined only to Head Clerks and Assi.>tant D 
Supelintendents-Accountallls not included therein-Heid inspite of supe-
liority of Accountants over Head Clerks in the pay scale at initial stage 
Ad111inistrative T1ibunal conunitted ennr in directing that Accountants should 
be considered senior to Head Clerks and given proniotion tq class II gazetted 
posts. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9853 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.5.93 of the Himachal 
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in T.A. No. 90 of 1987. 
H.S. Gururaja Rao, Devendra Singh and Ms. Deeva Singh for the 
Appellanl,. 
K.R. Nagaraja for the Respondent. 
Om Parkash Vashisht (In-Person) for Respondent. 
J.S. Attri for the Respondent Nos. 1-2. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
771 
E 
F 
G 
H 
772 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides and also respondent 
No. 8 in person. 
The undisputed facts are that while the appellants were working as 
Head Clerks and respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Gulzari Ram and Ram Lal were 
B working as Accountants, the scale of pay of the Head Clerks was 160-400 
while tha.t of the Accountants was 160-450. Later by executive order dated 
November 11, 1976 the Government had created 10 temporary posts of 
Assistants and upgraded them.to the scale of Rs. 225-500 and some senior 
candidates came to be appointed to those posts. Subsequently, statutory 
rules under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution came to be made, 
C increasing the number of posts and scale of pay of all the Head Clerks, 
Assistants, Stenographers etc. to Rs. 225-500. By proceedings of the 
Government dated November 2, l979 with ef;fect from January 1, 1978 
promotions of Accountants and Head Clerks were fused together, Pay of 
Assistants, Head Assistants etc. was revised to Rs. 620-1200, while that of 
D the junior Auditors and Accountants was revised to Rs. 570-1080. Similarly, 
for the promotion of the Accountants and Head Clerks statutory rules 
came to be made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution which 
came into force from June 13, 1978 enabling the Accountants and Head 
Clerks to be eligible for promotion as Superintendents. The Government 
have created promotional avenues to the posts of gazetted class II and the 
E Head Clerks, Assistant Superintendents were made eligible for promotion 
to the said posts of Gazetted Grade II in the scale of Rs. 500-900. The 
Accountants were not included therein. The respondents 3 and 4 filed 
representations claiming promotion to these posts but their claims were 
rejected. When they filed the writ petition in the High Court, Shimla which 
F was transferred to the Administrative Tribunal, which by the impugned in 
T.A. No. 90/87, dated May 25, 1993 directed the Government to consider 
their claims with effect from 1977 and also their entitlement for promotion 
as Gazetted Class II. Calling those directions jn question, the above appeal 
has come to be filed. 
G 
Shri Gururaja Rao, learned senior counsel for the appc1lants, con-
tended that though respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were initially drawing higher 
scale of pay of Rs. 160-450 and the appellants as Head Clerks were drawing 
pay scale of Rs. 160-400, by statutory orders their scale of pay was in-
creased to Rs. 225-5110 and later to Rs.620-1200 and thereby the appellants 
H 
scaled a march over the respondents \vhose scale of pay remained constant 
•· 
' 
SHISH RAM v. STATE 
773 
al Rs. 160- 450 which was increased to Rs. 570-1080 as referred lo hercin-
before. As a consequence, they cannot be made senior lo the appellants. 
Shri K.R. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the respondents con-
tended that they were recruited initially as clerks in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.