Petition challenged a communication denying super time pay scale. High Court held grant is based on merit-cum-seniority, not a right. Considering petitioner's adverse service record, Court found no error in the below decision and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed; no super time pay scale granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 54427 of 2005
Petitioner :- Satya Narain Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Govind Krishna Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arvind Srivastava,Manish Goyal
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
2
entries awarded to petitioner for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 have been detailed. In pra-9 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that in respect of adverse annual remarks for the year 1976-77, petitioner submitted a representation dated 07.09.1978 by which entries occurring in 1(e) IV, 1(f), 1(g) and 3 of A.C.R. were allowed to be expunged whereas rest of the entries were maintained. Petitioner was accordingly, informed of aforesaid by letter dated 10.03.1980. In para-10 of counter affidavit, it has been stated that against adverse entry, awarded to petitioner for the year 1977 -78, representation submitted by petitioner was rejected by the Court. Petitioner was, accordingly, informed vide letter dated 27.03.1980. In paragraph-13 of counter affidavit, it has been averred that adverse entry was awarded to petitioner for the year 1979-80. Representation against same was rejected by the Court vide order dated 21.07.1981. Similarly for the year 1990-91 adverse entry was awarded to petitioner. While petitioner was posted at Jalaun at Orai, Administrative Committee vide resolution dated 09.07.1997 resolved to initiate regular enquiry against petitioner and further to suspend him during enquiry. Consequently petitoner was placed under suspension vide office memorandum dated 10.07.1997. Departmental enquiry was initiated and Hon'ble S.R. Singh, J. was appointed as Enquiry Judge. He submitted enquiry report dated 20.11.2001. Concluding part of aforesaid enquiry report reads as under:
"In the conspectus of the above discussion and the findings recorded separately in relation to each charge, I veer around to the view that so far as charge of having dealt with execution applications actuated by 'extraneous consideration, is concerned, suffice it to say that there is no direct evidence to bring home the charge that the orders passed on extraneous consideration.' Indubitably, howerver, the manner in which some of the execution applications were disposed of an decretal amunt paid to the decree holders ostensibly in antagonism of the statutory rules, ex-facie manifests
3
recklessness and negligence on the part of the officer casting reflection on his integrity judged on the anvil of the tests laid down by the Apex Court in P.C. Joshi's case already excerpted hereinabove. The Court may draw such inference and award such punishment, as it may deem fit and proper in the factsituation of the case discussed above."
"Considered the representation of Sri Satya Narain (retired on 31.08.2004). He was placed under suspension vide Administrative Committee resolution dated 09.07.1997 and reinstated by Administrative Committee resolution dated 06.08.2002. Thereafter he was awarded adverse entry regarding his work being below standard. In view of the service record of the Officer, the Committee is of the opinion that, the representation merits rejection."
4
"Considered the representation of Sri Satya Narain (retired on 31.08.2004). He was placed under suspension vide Administrative Committee resolution dated 09.07.1997 and reinstated by Administrative Committee resolution dated 06.08.2002. Thereafter he was awarded adverse entry regarding his work being below standard. In view of the service record of of Officer, the Committee is of the opinion that the representation merits rejection."
5
candidates for grant of super time pay scale observed that for grant of super time pay scale entire service record of the officers be examined. As noted above service record of petitioner is not unblemished, Therefore, prima facie we do not find any fault with the decision refusing grant of super time pay scale to petitioner.
Þ1- dk;kZRed (Functional) vk/kkj ij fMfLVªDV ttksa dks lEoxZ esa LohÑr inksa ¼QkLV VªSd dksVZ~l gsrq fuf'pr vof/k ds fy, LohÑr in lfEefyr ugha gSa½ dh la[;k ds 25 izfr'kr rd p;u osrueku vuekU; gksxk c'krsZ fd mUgksaus lEoxZ esa U;wure ikap o"kZ dh yxkrkj fu;fer lsok iwjh dj yh gksA
2- lqij Vkbe Ldsy 10 izfr'kr lsysD'ku xzsM fMfLVªDV ttksa dks vuqeU; gksxk c'krsZ fd mUgksaus U;wure rhu o"kZ rd yxkrkj lsysD'ku xzsM fMfLVªDV tt dh lsok iwjh dj yh gksA
3- mDr nksuksa osrueku ;ksX;rk&de&T;s"Brk ds vkdyu ij LohÑr fd;s tk;saxsA
“1. On the functional basis, selection pay scale shall be admissible to District Judges upto 25 percent of the numbers of sanctioned posts (sanctioned posts for a fixed period for fast track courts are not included) in the cadre.
2. Super time scale shall be admissible to 10 percent District Judges in selection grade, provided they have completed service in selection grade as District Judge for a minimum of 3 constant years.
3. Both the aforesaid pay scales will be granted on the basis of merit-cum-seniority.” (Emhasis added)
(English translation by the Court)
6
Order Date :- 20.11.2019 Ashish Pd.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired judicial officer is entitled to super time pay scale despite adverse entries and disciplinary history requiring a merit-cum-seniority evaluation.
Whether treating the grant of super time pay scale as a right rather than a matter of discretion violates judicial principles.
Whether precedents relating to compulsory retirement are applicable to the grant of super time pay scale under Fundamental Rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajsthan vs. Fateh Chandra SoniReferred¶26
State of Rajsthan vs. Fateh Chandra Soni, 1996 (1) SCC 562 · Who else cites this
Baikuntha Nath Das vs. Chief District, Medical Officer, BaripadaDistinguished¶40
Baikuntha Nath Das vs. Chief District, Medical Officer, Baripada, AIR 1992 SC 1021 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. and another vs. Lalsa RamExplained¶40
State of U.P. and another vs. Lalsa Ram, AIR 2001 SC 1137 · Who else cites this
P.C. JoshiReferred¶12
P.C. Joshi's case
Satya Narain
State of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
