Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J
1. Heard. The petitioner stood promoted as Senior Statistical Assistant in the year 1998 and as per the Rules prevalent at the relevant time, there was neither any age nor educational qualification prescribed for the promotees, like the petitioner. Even in the subsequent Notification dated 16.09.2000 (Annexure A-1), while notifying the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the category of Statistical Assistant in the Health Department, the requirement of age and educational qualification was not applicable to the case of the promotees.
2. It appears that vide order dated 08.11.2010 (Annexure A-3) issued by the Finance Department, it was decided and conveyed to allow the revised higher pay scale to all Statistical Assistants working in the various Departments of the Government, with the pre-condition that qualifications were similar as prescribed for identical level in the Department of Economics and Statistics. However, prior to the issuance of order dated 08.11.2010 (supra) , some of the officials, including the present petitioner, had already been promoted and working as Statistical Assistants in the Department as was incorporated in the Finance Department order dated 08.11.2010.
3. The respondent-Department thought it appropriate to seek a clarification from the Government, vide letter dated 02.04.2011 (Annexure R-E/T). Initially, as per the observations of the Finance Department, financial implications in respect of all such persons, including the present petitioner, as sought for, were accordingly provided in the matter. However, subsequently after exchange of correspondence and further after getting the matter examined from the Finance Department, the following observations stood conveyed in the matter by the Government vide letter dated 17.07.2019:-
“Examined in the Finance (PR) Department in consultation with Finance (Regulation) Department, it stood observed that since the pay scales to petitioners in Mohinder Kumar’s case as well as to the non-petitioner had been granted on the sole condition of wholesome parity with reference to educational qualification etc., therefore relaxation in educational qualification for releasing higher pay scale cannot be granted in favour of Senior Statistical Assistants involved in the instant proposal. Hence, the Finance Department regretted its inability to concur in the proposal of Administrative Department.”
4. It appears that the aforesaid observations of the Government have been made the basis for rejecting the case of the petitioner.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record.
6. At the outset, we may observe that the manner in which the different Departments of the Government have been working is highly condemned qua the ignorance of the legal position. We really fail to understand how the Finance Department can seek to implement its order dated 08.11.2010, which is contrary to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The Finance Department is only a wing of Government and cannot impose its authority like a superior authority.
7. Given the fact that the Finance Department obviously has to be aware of the fact that executive instructions have to give way to the statutory Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, unless and until, the Rules have been amended, the aforesaid executive instructions cannot supplement these Rules. The petitioner has been dragged into unnecessary and otherwise avoidable litigation. Once the respondents themselves admit and as is otherwise clear from the Recruitment and Promotions Rules, more particularly, column-8 thereof that there was no requirement of any age or educational qualification prescribed for consideration of the cases of the promotees, like the petitioner to the post of Statistical Assistants, therefore, the respondents were duty bound to fix the salary of the petitioner and allow him the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 by ignoring the instructions issued by the Finance Department.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and (i) the respondents are directed to re-fix the salary of the petitioner and allow him the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986; (ii) respondent No.3 is directed to re-fix the pension of the petitioner as per the revised pay-scale on actual basis and; (iii) the respondents are directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount/arrears.
9. Since the petitioner has been unnecessarily dragged into unwarranted and otherwise avoidable litigation, the instant petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-, which shall be borne at the first instance equally by the Finance Department and respondent No.2 herein and the same shall be recovered from the erring officers/officials, irrespective of the fact whether the officer/official is serving or has retired. The necessary exercise in the matter shall be completed within a period of six months from today.
10. The instant petition is disposed of, in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.
To come up for compliance on 11.11.2024
