NANDINI SARMA Vs. ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL GHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt Nandi Sarma, the writ petitioner herein, being aggrieved with the Notification No. FPC. 1/91/154 dated 20th September, 1995 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam and the order dated 9.9.1996 passed by the Assam Administrative Tribunal in Case No. 65 ATA/95 has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that she had passed M.Sc. in Physics in 1989 obtaining 1st Class and also Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Science. She was appointed as Programmer for the Computer Division of the Assam Administrative Staff College under Rule 3(1) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Adhoc) Appointment Rules, 1986 vide office order dated 12.9.1990 issued by the Respondent No. 4. She was given pay scale of Rs.850 to 1175/- per month. It was indicated in the appointment letter that the scale of pay was likely to be revised. The petitioner joined the said post on 21.9.1990. In course of lime, it was found that the scale given to her was lower than the scale of pay which was proposed by the Director of Training, Assam Administrative Staff College and that it was not at par with the scale of pay given to the Programmers of other departments. Further, the scale was also not at par with the scale recommended in Schedule 'A' to the Assam Services (R.O.P) Rules, 1990. The R.O.P. Rules recommended the scale of Rs.2275 to 4450/- per month against pre-revised scale of Rs.1125 to 1975/- per month paid to the Programmers. The petitioner submitted a representation before the Respondent No, 4 to extend the scale as in the R.O.P. Rules of 1990. The Respondent No. 4 recommended to the Respondent No, 2 to take steps for extending the scale as was payable before revision as well as after revision. While forwarding the representation, the Respondent No. 4 also informed that the petitioner was already selected by the Assam Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of System Analyst-cum-Programmer in the Planning and Development Department in the scale of Rs.2275 to 4450/-. In view of the aforesaid recommendation by the Respondent No.4 and assurance having been given to her, the petitioner did not join the planning and Development Department on the expectation that the anomaly in respect of her pay scale would be duly corrected. The Respondent No.4 also reminded the appropriate authority of the Government by a series of letters to expedite the decision on the aforesaid representation submitted by the writ petitioner. The petitioner again submitted a representation on 16.10.1995 informing the Respondent No. 4 that the initial pay scale given to her was in fact the scale meant for the Assistant Programmer of other departments. It was also indicated in the said representation that the minimum qualification required for the post of Assistant Programmer is graduation while the qualification for the post of Programmer of the Assam Administrative Staff College is post-graduation: Eventually, vide letter No. TRG/7/95/12 dated 20.10.1995 the scale of pay of Programmer in the Assam Administrative Staff College was fixed at Rs. 1785 to 4200/- instead of Rs.2275 to 4450/ -permonth and the petitioner was accordingly given the scale vide letter dated 31.10.1995. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision, she had preferred an appeal before the Assam Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati. The Assam Administrative Tribunal disposed of the appeal (Case No. 65 ATA/95) rejecting her claim for enhanced scale vide judgment dated 9.9.1996. The petitioner's case is that the scale granted to her vis-a-vis the pay scale granted to similarly situated persons in other departments is contrary to the principles of

(3.) The respondents' plea as is evident from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.2 is that by a notification issued in the State Gazette on 20th September, 1995, the pay scale in respect off the Programmer which was wrongly quoted has been rectified. The respondents also relied upon Rule 7 of the R.O.P. Rules of 1990 in order to justify the fixation of pay of the writ petitioner in the aforesaid scale. It is submitted that when the petitioner applied for the post of Programmer in June, 1990 she did not possess any post-graduate diploma recognised by the Government nor did she have any experience. According to them, considering the duties and responsibilities of the Programmer attached to the Assam Administrative Staff College the post was created in the scale of Rs.850 to 1775/- with the approval of the Finance Department. The applicant was selected and appointed although she did not have requisite qualification due to non-availability of qualified and experienced persons to run the in service training in Computer in Assam Administrative Staff College. The scale before the revision as appeared in the Schedule to the Assam Services (R.O.P.) Rules, 1990 was inadvertently shown as Rs.1125 to 1975/- instead of Rs.850 to 1775/-. As a result, the revised scale was mis-quoted to be Rs.2275 to 4450/- in place of Rs. 1785 to 4200/-. This mistake has been rectified by notification dated 20th September, 1995. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to the revised seals of Rs.2275 to 4450/- as claimed by her.