THOMAS GEORGE Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order confirmed in appeal by Ext.P2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed on 30/4/1981 as a Salesman(Trainee) and was confirmed on 1/1/1982 in the pay scale of 115-7-150-10-210. Subsequently he was promoted on 1/7/1985 as Store Manager in the scale of pay of Junior Clerk; 170-10-220-15-325. The post of Store Manager having been abolished, the petitioner was accommodated as an Attender on 01/04/2000. While he was continuing so, the Respondent-Bank passed a Resolution to grant the petitioner Higher Grade in the pay scale 1205-1980 with effect from 1/7/1995 and the same was sent to the third respondent for approval. However while considering the grant of Higher Grade, the third respondent found that the petitioner's promotion to the post of the Store Manager and the fixation of salary available in the post of Junior Clerk was irregular in so far as the petitioner did not have SSLC, which is the prescribed qualification for Junior Clerk. Hence it was directed that the salary of the petitioner be re-fixed in the scale of 120-8-136-10- 260 with effect from 1-7-1985, that is the date of his promotion as Store Manager.

(2.) THE appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by Ext.P2. On a consideration of the facts as well as the qualification for the post, it was found that no qualification as such has been prescribed for Store Manager. But on the ground that the other employees who were promoted as Store Manager, were having the qualification of SSLC., the Appellate Authority confirmed Ext.P1 order.

(3.) LOOKING at Ext.P1 order, it is very evident that no notice was issued to the Petitioner before it was directed to revise his pay scale to a lower one, that too, with retrospective effect from 1985. The Appellate Authority has also found that there is no qualification prescribed for the post of Store Manager. Even the respondents do not have a case that the post of Store Manager was not a sanctioned one. In any event there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the petitioner had continued working in the post of Store Manager till his adjustment in the post of Attender at the time of abolition of the Store Manager's post. The petitioner's pay in the lower post on the abolition of the higher post was also protected while he was appointed as an Attender. Only after considerable passage of time, that is in 2001, when the Bank sought for fixation in the Higher Grade, as per Resolution passed by the committee, Ext.P1 order came to be passed.