Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Supreme Court says promotion may include a higher pay scale without moving to a different post
The SC while dismissing the appeals filed by Telephone Operators with the Delhi Fire Service later positioned as Radio Telephone Operators says that promotion may include an upgrade in the payment scale without moving to a different post.
In this case, the debate was on the interpretation of an office message introducing an Assured Career Progression ("ACP") Scheme by which it was decided to allow two financial advancements after completing 12 and 24 years of regular service respectively. The appellants here asserted their first financial up-gradation after completion of 12 years in the DFS as Telephone Operators/RTOs but it was denied to them saying that it would be treated as a promotion.
So the issue was whether their positioning as RTOs would be termed as a promotion or a mere identification and entitlement to the ACP separately as per the scheme?
To argue that there is a difference between promotion and up-gradation, both the appellants and the state referred to the SC judgment in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy. The appellants contended that this is not a case of Promotion, whereas the state stated that three features of the present case clearly classifies it as the promotion for the purpose of the ACP Scheme. They are-
The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ajay Rastogi, and Aniruddha Bose dismissing the plea said that the conclusion is based on a holistic view considering the factual matrix of the case and it has followed the principles laid down in BSNL(supra case). It said, “The consequence of reorganization of the cadre resulted in not only a mere re-description of the post but also a much higher pay scale being granted to the appellants based on an element of selection criteria.”
It said so because at the first itself there is a requirement of a minimum of 5 years of service, which makes all the telephone operators eligible for the new post.
Secondly, financial payments are much higher. And Thirdly, they had to go through the rigorous of specialized training. It observed that all these cannot be stated to be only an exercise of merely redescription or reorganization of the cadre.
The court noted that,
On applying the test in the BSNL case (supra), as per sub-para (i) of para 29, promotion may include advancement to a higher pay scale without moving to a different post. In the present case, there is a re-description of the post based on a higher pay scale and specialized training. It is not a case covered by sub-para (iii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, where the higher pay scale is available to everyone who satisfies the eligibility condition without undergoing any process of selection. The training and the benchmark of 5 years of service itself involve an element of the selection process. Similarly, it is not as if the requirement is only a minimum of 5 years of service by itself, so as to cover it under sub-para (iv).
86540
103860
630
114
59824