K IBRAHIM Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Exts. P3, P7 and P9. The petitioner joined Government service as Typist in the year 1956. As per Ext. P1, he is given the effective date of appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector with effect from 23.8.1973. True, the actual date of appointment is 15.1.1982..But on granting the notional promotion, the petitioner has been treated as belonging to the cadre of A.M.V.I, with effect from 23.8.1973 as per Ext. P1. On that basis, the petitioner claimed the benefit of ten years higher grade introduced as per the Pay Commission Report. The same was declined as per Ext. P9 on the ground that actual service in a particular post alone will be reckoned for higher grade and periods of service on notional promotions are not counted for the purpose of higher grade. It is further stated in the impugned Ext. P9 order that the petitioner was granted only notional promotion and that he had not exercised any duties attached to the post during the period of notional promotion. As can be seen from Ext. P1, it is a case where the petitioner was denied promotion and pursuant to the directions issued by this Court only, he was restored the benefits, true notionally. But, the fact remains that his pay has been fixed in the cadre of A.M.V.I. with effect from 23.8.1973 pursuant to Ext. P1. Stagnation in a scale for ten years is the basis for granting higher grade. Though the petitioner was granted only notional benefits, it has to be seen that he was in the scale in the said period of ten years. Whether a person who was in actual discharge of duties attached to a post is not a consideration relevant in the matter of granting higher grade. Having been denied promotion and the promotion having been restored pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, it is only in the interests of justice that the petitioner is granted at least the higher grade taking the period of notional service as service for the purpose of granting higher grade. Therefore, I set aside Ext. P9 and direct the first respondent to grant the benefit of higher grade for the period of ten years treating the petitioner to have been in service in the cadre of A.M.V.I, with effect from 23.8.1973.

(2.) Yet another grievance of the petitioner as per impugned Exts. P3 and P7 orders is regarding denial of promotion as Joint R.T.O. Select list of eligible persons for promotion to the post of Joint R.T.O. was published on 17.3.1987 for the years 1985 and 1986. The petitioner's name was not included. He represented the matter before the Government leading to Ext. P3 order. It is stated in Ext. P3 Government Order as follows:

(3.) None of these relevant aspects have been considered by the Government. In view of the fact that the petitioner retired from service as early as on 30.4.1992, I do not think it necessary to send back the matter for fresh consideration. The factual position being what is stated above, it is only just and proper that the petitioner is restored the benefits as follows :