SATRUGHNA LENKA Vs. REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is serving as an Inspector of Co -operative Societies has approached this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court for a direction to the opposite party to pass appropriate orders allowing the petitioner to cross the Efficiency Bar in the time -scale of pay with effect from February, 1976. According to the petitioner's case, his pay in the revised scale of pay was fixed with effect from 1 -1 -1974 in the time -scale of pay of Rs. 400 -10 -15 -500 -E.B. -20 -62Q/ -. On 1 -2 -1976, the petitioner reached the stage where he was required to cross the Efficiency Bir and though the intermediate superior recommened his case for allowing him to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from 1 -2 -1976, but the competent authority did not pass any order allowing the petitioner to cross the bar. In 1978, again the petitioner's case was considered, but the competent authority passed an order on 25 -1 -1978 indicating that the petitioner should wait for another year for consideration of his Efficiency Bar. The order has been annexed as Annexure -3. The petitioner addressed a representation as per Annexure -5 to the Registrar of Co -operative Societies, Orissa, and the Establishment Officer of the Registrar passed the order contained in Annexure -6 indicating that the petitioner's case for crossing the Efficiency Bar would be considered after disposal of the disciplinary proceeding At this stage the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction, as already stated.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party, it has been stated that the competent authority has passed an order on 10th of January, 1985, allowing the petitioner to cross the Efficiency Bar in the time -scale of pay with effect from 1 -2 -1979 with cumulative effect and, therefore, the petitioner's prayer in the writ petition to quash Annexure -6 does not survive for any further consideration. In the counter affidavit it has also been indicated that as the performance of the petitioner was below average during the period 1976 till 1979, the competent: authority did not allow the petitioner to cross the Efficiency Bar, but only some improvement in the performance having been marked, the petitioner has been allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from 1 -2 -1979. - -

(3.) COMING to the other submission of Mr. Palit, we also do not find any force in the same. No doubt, with holding of increment is a punishment within the meaning of Rule 13 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, but Explanation (b) to the said Rule unequivocally indicates that the stoppage of a Government servant at the Efficiency Bar in the time -scale on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar will not amount to a penalty within the meaning of the said Rule. In view of the aforesaid explanation, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Palit, the learned counsel for the petitioner.