REGHUNATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The basic challenge involved in this Writ Petition is against Ext. P2 proceedings of the government and Ext. P3 consequential order passed by the second respondent, whereby the claim of the persons like the petitioners for granting the time bound higher grade on completion of eight years' service in the post of Treasurer' has been rejected. While challenging Exts. P2 and P3, the petitioners have also challenged the virus of Note (ii) to Rule 4 of the Kerala Treasury Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') whereby it is stated that the persons appointed as Treasurers' subsequent to 10.02.1964 by transfer from among the category of Senior/Junior Accountants shall retain their lien in the cadre of Senior/Junior Accountants and shall be given promotions to higher categories on the basis of their relative seniority in the cadre of Senior/Junior Accountants. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the post of Treasurer' is a much higher post carrying a higher scale of pay than the post of Junior Accountant and even as per the terminology used in the order of their appointment giving posting as Treasurer, it has to be treated as an 'order of promotion'. It is contended that, though their entry post was Junior Accountant, by virtue of their 'promotion' to the post of Treasurer', they are entitled to get the benefit of Time Bound Higher Grade on completing the requisite period of 'eight' years in the post of Treasurer'. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the relevant rules, the post of Treasurer' is shown as the feeder category for promotion to the post of categories 2 and 3 and by virtue of Note (ii) incorporated under Rule 4, the very scope and purpose of the rule itself is defeated and hence that Note (ii) has to be struck down from the Rules, particularly since no clause in the form of a 'Note' can restrict the mandate of the Rule.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader referring to the contents of the counter affidavit, submits that the scale of pay of the post of Treasurer' and that of the 'Senior Accountant' is one and the same, though the post of Junior Accountant and that of the 'Typist' are having a lesser scale of pay. Notwithstanding the lesser status with regard to the post of Junior Accountant and Typist, the incumbents of these categories along with the persons holding the post of Senior Accountant, by virtue of the specific rule position as envisaged under Rule 4 of the Rules, are provided with a chance/option to be appointed as Treasurer' carrying a higher scale of pay, of course, coupled with higher level of duties and higher responsibilities: It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that in view of the higher job specification attached to the post of Treasurer', normally the people working in the other categories of posts, which are being considered for appointment to the post of Treasurer' by transfer, as provided under Rule 4 are rather averse to have such assignment. It is for this reason that Note (ii) has been incorporated under Rule 4, making it clear that such categories of persons, on their option and appointment by transfer as Treasurer' shall be given promotions to the higher categories on the basis of their relative seniority in the cadre of Senior/Junior Accountants.

(3.) It is true that Rule 4(4) of the Rules does not give a distinctive categorisation between Senior and Junior Accountants and the word used therein is collectively as Accountants' and 'Typists' who opt for such appointment Such appointment 'by transfer' is on the basis of the 'option' to be exercised by such employees who come within the purview of the zone of consideration, as specified therein. In other words, the Rule does not say anywhere that the post of Treasurer is liable to be treated as a 'promotional post' from any other category including the post of Junior Accountant/Typist^ In the absence of any such provision, the persons like the petitioners who were admittedly appointed as Junior Accountants and later posted as Treasurers 'by transfer' can never successfully contend that the posting given to them as Treasurers was 'by promotion'. In other words, the said posting was only by way of some accommodation/concession on the basis of the Rule, which could not have been claimed as a matter of right, treating the post of Junior Accountant (to which the petitioners were originally appointed) as the 'feeder category' to the post of Treasurer. As it stands so, (it cannot be accepted that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of Time Bound Higher Grade promotion on completion of eight years' service in the post of Treasurer, treating it as the 'first promoted post', for the plain reason that the line of hierarchy of the petitioners lay elsewhere.