R K AMINBHAVI Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which arises for determination in this petition under Article 226 is whether the petitioner is entitled to the higher grade benefit in accordance with the General Order No. 74 of the respondent Maharashtra State Electricity Board.

(2.) THE General Order No. 74 (for short "g. O. 74") was issued by the respondent on 30th April, 1974. The said General Order provides that if an employee has remained on a given post for ten years or more without the advantage of promotion to a higher post or higher grade for want of clear vacancy, such employee shall be given the higher grade benefit. On 6th May, 1983 the respondent amended G. O. 74 and the condition of ten years service for the benefit of higher grade was reduced to six years, with effect from 1st April, 1980. In short the amended G. O. 74 provides that an employee who has completed six years on 1st April, 1980 and who has not got promotion to a higher post for no fault of his own, but for want of a clear vacancy of for want of a channel of promotion or an employee who may complete six years service in a given post after 1st April, 1980 and who may not get promotion for the same reason is entitled to promotion to the next higher grade in the channel of promotion. There was further amendment to G. O. 74 by correction slip Nos. 1 and 15, dated 30th April, 1990. By the said amendment it is provided that in respect of employees who have channel of promotion the first benefit shall be granted under the provisions of G. O. 74 after the completion of six years continuous service in a given post and the second benefit shall be granted from the date of completion of six years reckoned from the date of absorption in the post of which the first benefit is granted or from the date on which the first benefit was granted whichever is earlier.

(3.) NOW turning to the facts of the case it is clear that the petitioner had joined the services of respondent sometime in the year 1959 as Lower Division Clerk. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Divisional Accountant vide order, dated 17th July, 1975. He reported on the said post on 9th August, 1975. He was allowed to cross the efficiency bar in the year 1980. In view of the amendment of 6th May, 1983 the petitioner became entitled for benefit of higher grade on 9th August, 1981. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the amendment of 1983 reducing the period of ten years to six years. He was under bona fide impression that pre-condition for entitlement for next higher grade benefit was completion of ten years in the existing post. The petitioner, therefore, applied for benefits of G. O. 74 on 8th July, 1985 i. e. , after completion of ten years in the post of Divisional Accountant. As there was no reply from respondent for considerably long time, the petitioner again wrote to the respondent a letter on 16th December, 1987 demanding benefit of higher grade of Accounts Officer. By reply letter, dated 19th July, 1989 the Special Officer (Establishment) informed the petitioner that as the departmental action initiated against the petitioner is in process the case of the petitioner's promotion for the post of Accounts Officer under G. O. 74 will be decided only after the receipt of the decision of the competent authority. At this stage, it is required to be stated that a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 4th July, 1988. In the departmental inquiry that was held pursuant to the said charge-sheet the petitioner was found guilty and awarded punishment under order, dated 7th August, 1990 of withholding one increment for a period of one year without its cumulative effect.