In a recent legal case, the court provided clarity on the concept of Time Bound Promotions (TBP) and its application. The case revolved around the criteria for granting the first TBP to an employee, emphasizing the importance of specific service criteria required for such promotions. The court’s analysis sheds light on the intricacies of TBP schemes and the significance of adhering to the designated timelines and service conditions for eligibility. Stay informed with the detailed legal insights into the case’s legal analysis.
Facts
- The State of Maharashtra and another appealed against the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal quashing and setting aside orders dated 06.10.2015 and 21.11.2015, refixing the pay scale and pension of respondent no.1.
- The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State of Maharashtra and others.
- The Tribunal allowed the original application and directed the appellants to release the pension of respondent no.1 as per his pay scale on the date of retirement.
- The Tribunal emphasized that the services rendered by respondent no.1 as a Technical Assistant should be considered while granting the benefit of the first TBP.
- Respondent no.1 was initially appointed on 11.05.1982 as a Technical Assistant on work charge basis.
- Respondent no.1 was absorbed into one of the 25 posts of Civil Engineering Assistants created in 1989.
- Respondent no.1 was granted the benefit of first Time Bound Promotion (TBP) after 12 years of service and second TBP after 24 years of service.
- An objection was raised for granting the first TBP based on the date of initial appointment in 1982.
- Respondent no.1’s pay scale and pension were downgraded in 2015 leading to filing of Original Application No. 238/2016 before the Tribunal.
- Respondent no.1 retired from service on 31.05.2013 and pension proposal was forwarded based on last pay drawn at retirement.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Analysis
- The respondent was absorbed in a newly created post of Civil Engineering Assistant in 1989, entitling him to the first Time Bound Promotion (TBP) after twelve years of service from that date.
- Had the respondent been absorbed in his previous post of Technical Assistant, the outcome may have been different.
- His initial appointment in 1982 as a Technical Assistant on work charge basis was distinct from his absorption in the Civil Engineering Assistant post in 1989, which had a different pay scale.
- The High Court and the Tribunal erred in overturning the revision of pay scale and pension based on the grant of the first TBP from 1989, as it was found that the respondent was entitled to it only after completing twelve years of service from that year.
- Approval from the Government and Finance Department for the TBP does not preclude its modification or withdrawal if later found to be incorrectly granted considering the service criteria.
- Services rendered as a Technical Assistant on work charge basis from 1982 could not be counted towards the requirement for the first TBP in the different post of Civil Engineering Assistant.
- The TBP scheme applies when an employee serves for twelve years in the same post and pay scale.
- Grant of first TBP was not due to misrepresentation by the respondent.
- Downward revision of pay scale occurred after the respondent’s retirement.
- No recovery is required on re-fixation of pay scale.
- The respondent is entitled to pension based on re-fixation of pay scale from 1989.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Decision
- The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the Tribunal have been quashed and set aside.
- The contesting respondent is entitled to the first Time Bound Promotion (TBP) after twelve years from 1989 when he was absorbed as a Civil Engineering Assistant.
- The pay scale and pension of the contesting respondent are to be revised accordingly.
- There will be no recovery of the amount already paid to the contesting respondent for the first TBP considering his initial appointment from 1982.
- The appeal is partly allowed to the extent mentioned.
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Case Title: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MADHUKAR ANTU PATIL (2022 INSC 320)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001985-001985 / 2022
