RE-CLASSIFICATION/UPGRADATION OF CITIES/TOWNS ON THE BASIS OF CENSUS-2011

The Government of India, reclassified the status of cities and towns by its office memorandum no.2/5/2014-E.II(B) dated 21/07/2015 for the purpose of House Rent Allowance (HRA) for its employees. Details are given below:

SUPREME COURT: DISABILITY PENSION - WITHOUT GIVING A REASON - LACK OF PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE MEDICAL BOARD

In this case, the respondent Indian Air Force employee was rendered ineligible for further promotion and thereby invalidated on the ground of his being in medical category A4 G4 (Permanent). In the absence of any specific note on record as to the respondent suffering from any disease prior to his joining the service, he is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition while entering service as per Rule 5(a) of the Entitlement Rules.

The fact remains that the respondent employee was denied promotion on medical grounds and the deterioration in his health should therefore be presumed to have been caused due to service in the light of Rule 5(b) of the Entitlement Rules. Moreover, simply recording a conclusion that the disability was not attributable to service, without giving a reason as to why the diseases were not deemed to be attributable to service, clearly shows lack of proper application of mind by the Medical Board.

In these circumstances, the view taken by the Medical Board was rejected by the Supreme Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of above Rules and Regulations as well as settled principles of law, SC of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had not committed any error in awarding disability pension to the respondent for 60% disability from the date of his discharge along with 10% p.a. interest on the arrears. For all the reasons stated above, SC did not find any merit in the  appeal of the Union of India and dismissed the appeal directing the appellants to release the arrears of disability pension to the respondent within three months from today together with interest @10% p.a.

(Reference: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11208 OF 2011 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... APPELLANTS V/S ANGAD SINGH TITARIA ... RESPONDENT,  JUDGMENT dated 24/02/2015.)

GOI now issued Office Memorandum dated 03/07/2015 on: Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months - Supreme Court

Kindly refer to my earlier posting of May 2015 on the same subject regarding a direction of the Supreme Court to the Government to issue instructions regarding timely completion of the disciplinary proceedings including suspension. Now the Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training issued the order vide OFFICE MEMORANDUM F. No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.(A) Dated July 3rd , 2015 as follows:-

“Subject: Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 — instructions regarding timely issue of Charge-sheet - regarding.

........ in a recent case, AjayKumar Choudhary vs Union of India Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2015 dated 16/02/2015 the Apex Court has directed as follows: We, therefore, direct that the currency of Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/ Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/ employee;

2. It is noted that in many cases charge sheets are not issued despite clear prima facie evidence of misconduct on the ground that the matter is under investigation by an investigating agency like Central Bureau of Investigation etc. In the aforesaid judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court has superseded the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance.

3. In this connection, attention is invited to this Department O.M. No. 35014/1 /81-Estt A dated 9.11.1982 which contained the guidelines for timely issue of charge-sheet to Charged officer and to say that these instructions lay down, inter-alia, that where a Government servant is placed under suspension on the ground of "Contemplated"disciplinary proceedings, the existing instructions provide that every effort would be made to finalise the charges, against the Government servant within three months of the date of suspension. If these instructions are strictly adhered to, a Government servant who is placed under suspension on the ground of contemplated disciplinary proceedings will become aware of the reasons for his suspension without much loss of time. The reasons for suspension should be communicated to the Government servant concerned at the earliest, so that he may be in a position to effectively exercise the right of appeal available to him under Rule 23 (i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, if he so desires. The time-limit of forty five days for submission of appeal should be counted from the date on which the reasons for suspension arc communicated.”

SUPREME COURT TO GOVERNMENT: PREPARE DIFFERENT SENIORITY LISTS FOR DIFFERENT GRADES

The case is related to the interpretation of some of the paras of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989 namely paras 180, 189 and 320. It pertains to the preparation of seniority lists and promotion of railway employees from one group to another and from one grade to another within the group. Railway services and in any other Government of India services, have been mainly classified in four groups A, B, C & D. The instant case is concerned with services included in different grades in groups C and D. In each group, there are different grades and the employees working in the lowest grade in one group get promotion to the higher grade within the group. When an employee is in the highest grade in a group, he would get promotion to the higher group and the promotion is given on different criteria. The persons working in a particular grade would be having same pay scale, might be working in different departments or different branches with different qualifications and different nature of work. For the purpose of service conditions and for the purpose of higher promotion, persons belonging to one grade are treated equally.

In the instant case, all 3 respondents were initially working in group D. Out of this, respondent nos.2 and 3 were promoted to a higher post of Pointsman ‘B’ in group C, whereas respondent no.1, who was having the longest service in group D, had not been promoted and therefore, he had approached Central Administrative Tribunal with a grievance that he had been denied benefit of promotion. The Tribunal had directed that the applicant should be considered for promotion on the basis of his seniority.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, Union of India approached the High Court of Kerala. Vide judgment dated 27th November, 2007, the High Court dismissed the Petition filed by the Union of India and hence the present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

It is an admitted fact that so far as length of service in group D is concerned, respondent no.1 was having longer service than respondent nos.2 and 3. But the question here is whether a person working in one grade of a lower group can get promotion on the basis of his seniority in his group irrespective of the length of service rendered in a particular grade. For example, a person working in the lowest grade i.e. in grade IV would get promotion to grade III, then to grade II and then to grade I. After he has been placed in grade I of group D, he would get promotion to the lowest grade in group C, which is a higher group.

In this case, Respondent no.1 was having longer service in group D but was in a lower grade than respondent nos.2 and 3 in group D service. That is why he was not promoted to a group C post. To be able to get promoted to a post in group C, one must be in the highest grade of group C and admittedly respondent no.1 was not in the highest grade of group C and being in a lower grade than respondent nos.2 and 3, respondent no.1 could not have been promoted along with respondent nos.2 and 3.

Hence the Supreme Court opined that the Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error while coming to the conclusion that simply because respondent no.1 had a longer service in group D, he should also have been promoted along with respondent nos.2 and 3, who were working in a higher grade in group D.

Therefore, Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal. The Court also directed that according to the provisions of the above stated paras contained in the Manual, the appellants i.e., the Union of India/Railway should prepare different seniority lists for employees working in different grades.

The direction of the Court to the Union of India to prepare different seniority lists for employees working in different grades indicates that the absence of such system created the whole confusion and such a long litigation from Tribunal, High Court, and then to the Supreme court.

(Reference:- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL NO.2532 OF 2010 Union of India & Ors. ... Appellants V/s V.K. Krishnan & Ors. ... Respondents, Judgement dated, FEBRUARY 17, 2015.)

SUPREME COURT ON SENIORITY DISPUTE

SUPREME COURT ON SENIORITY DISPUTE OF EMPLOYEES ON

MERGER AND THEN REMERGER

The controversy was emerged on account of a reconstitution of cadres. In the first instance, a separate cadre was constituted, out of the existing ministerial cadre, for discharging electronic data processing responsibilities. Again the separate cadre so created, was sought to be re-amalgamated with the existing ministerial cadre. The above noticed bifurcation and re-amalgamation, resulted in a coincidental career advancement, for those who had accepted to break away from the original ministerial cadre. Some of those who were originally placed at inferior positions in the seniority list of the original ministerial cadre, acquired superiority over their counterparts, consequent upon their promotion within the cadre of data entry operators, which resulted in their acquiring a higher position in seniority, over and above those who were senior to them in the original ministerial cadre.

The members of the two cadres were originally discharging similar duties. It is only as a consequence of the administrative decision to computerize the functioning of the Customs and Central Excise Department that a separate cadre of Data Entry Operators came to be created. The newly created cadre, exclusively functioned towards giving effect to the decision to computerize the functioning of the department.

Consequent upon the merger of posts, upon the promulgation of the TA Rules, 2003, and the STA Rules, 2003, the nature and duties of the two cadres were combined. Consequent upon their appointment as Tax Assistants and Senior Tax Assistants, members of the erstwhile ministerial cadre, and members of the cadre of Data Entry Operators, were required to perform both procedural duties and duties relating to computer applications. The deficiencies in the two cadres sought to be merged, were sought to be overcome, by subjecting the members of the two cadres to different examinations, whereby, the two cadres were trained for discharging their duties efficiently, on merger, whilst holding the posts of Tax Assistants/Senior Tax Assistants.

In the above premises, it was held that there was no serious difference between the two merged cadres, either on the issue of nature of duties, or on the subject of powers exercised by the officers holding the post, or the extent of territorial or other charge held, or responsibilities discharged by them, or for that matter, the qualifications prescribed for the posts. Hence it was further held that the merger of the cadres, and the determination of the inter se seniority on merger, were justifiably determined, on the basis of the different pay-scales of the cadres merged, under the TA Rules, 2003 and the STA Rules, 2003. By the mandate of the above Rules, all posts in equivalent pay-scales were placed at the same level. Posts in the higher scale of pay, were given superiority on the subject of inter se seniority, with reference to posts in the lower scale of pay.

In the considered view of the court, the above determination, at the hands of the rule framing authority, on the issue canvassed before them, could not be termed either arbitrary or discriminatory.

Therefore, constitutional validity of the provisions of Rule 4 of the TA Rules, 2003 and Rule 5 of the STA Rules, 2003 were upheld. As a consequence, the different orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal, and the common order dated 13.4.2007 passed by the High Court, were set aside and the appeals filed by those who moved to the cadre of Data Entry Operators from the ministerial cadre, and were thereupon amalgamated in the cadre of Tax Assistants/Senior Tax Assistants, are allowed. The connected appeals preferred by the Union of India, are also allowed.

(Reference:- Supreme Court of India CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2485-2490 OF 2010 in Dhole Govind Sahebrao & others … Appellants V/s Union of India & others … Respondents, decided on  March 26, 2015)

Supreme Court on PREMATURE REPATRIATION FROM DEPUTATION

REINSTATEMENT OR FULL SALARY FOR THE BALANCE PERIOD IS ADMISSIBLE FOR PREMATURE REPATRIATION FROM DEPUTATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SUPREME COURT DECISION.

The respondent was working as a Scientist E-II in the Central Mining Research Institute. On 29.07.2003, he was appointed for 5 years on deputation to the post of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (‘CGPDTM’). After serving there for one year, he was repatriated to his parent department. The said order was challenged before the central administrative tribunal contending that he could not have been pre-maturely repatriated to his parent department and there had been a violation of the principle of audi altram partem. The said stand of the 1st respondent was contested by the authorities of Union of India proponing that he had no right to continue in the post as he was on deputation. The tribunal accepted the stance put forth by the Union of India and dismissed the Original Application. Then the 1st respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench of the High Court has overturned the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed that the writ petitioner to be reinstated in the post of CGPDTM on similar terms and conditions with all consequential benefits.Then the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court.

In the appeal, the Supreme Court of the considered view that there should not be any loss of salary, but at the same time, S.C. was of the view  that, if they direct for his reinstatement as the High Court had done, it would create an anomalous situation. Therefore, in their considered view, the cause of justice would be best subserved, if he was allowed to get the entire salary that was payable to him for the post of CGPDTM for the balance period of five years minus the period he had actually served and drawn salary. Therefore, the Supreme Court directed the Appellants to pay the balance amount with interest @ 9% p.a. within three months. (Reference:  THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA decision in Union of India & Anr. ... Appellants   V/S  S.N. Maity & Anr. ...Respondents in CIVIL APPEAL NO.5983 OF 2007 decided on January 06, 2015)

Supreme Court: Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ON SUSPENSION

Supreme Court of India has direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in this case, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. This would adequately safeguard

the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. ( Ref:- AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA - CIVIL APPEAL No. 1912 OF 2015 Supreme Court of India order dated 16/02/2015)