Delve into the legal intricacies of a recent court judgment regarding career progression benefits in the public sector. The case revolves around the interpretation of Time Bound Advancement (TBA) and Revised Assured Career Progression (RACP) schemes, with a focus on the Tribunal’s decision to uphold the employee’s claim for a particular benefit. The court’s analysis sheds light on the application of rules and circulars in determining the entitlements of employees, setting a significant precedent for similar cases in the future.
Facts
- The respondent joined as an Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF), Grade-B on 06.11.1990.
- Time Bound Advancement (TBA) scales were provided under ORSP Rules, 1998 on completion of 15 years and 25 years of service.
- The respondent was allowed TBA scale on 10.11.2005 under the ORSP Rules, 1998.
- The benefits given to the respondent included promotions and upgradations on various dates as per the RACP Scheme.
- A third promotion by way of pay upgradation was accorded to the respondent on 05.06.2010.
- The Revised Assured Career Progression Scheme (RACP Scheme) provided for financial upgradations on completion of 10 years, 20 years, and 30 years of service.
- An Office Memorandum was issued clarifying that upgradations fulfilling the financial factor would comply with the RACP Scheme.
- A formal Order was issued on 29.08.2016 to withdraw the financial upgradation given to the respondent.
- The Tribunal allowed the O.A. of the respondent, stating that the Office Memorandum of 23.02.2016 was not in line with the RACP scheme and should not supersede the original resolution of 6.2.2013.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Arbitration Petition Limitation Period
Arguments
- The order dated 07.08.2016 and the subsequent order dated 29.08.2016 were justified and in accordance with the Rules and the RACP Scheme.
- The benefit given to the respondent by the Tribunal was deemed unjustified in law and the Tribunal’s order was sought to be quashed.
- The TBA accorded on 10.11.2005 was not considered as it was not under the RACP Scheme.
- The Office Memorandum dated 23.02.2016 was seen as justified since the earlier upgradation given to the respondent fulfilled the essence of the RACP Scheme.
- Legal precedents were cited to support the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel backing the justification for the Office Memorandum and the quashing of the Tribunal’s order.
- The respondent had received only one upgradation/promotion in their 20 years of service on 05.06.2010.
Also Read: Analysis of High Courts’ Jurisdiction and Court Orders Under Article 142
Analysis
- The upgradation on 13.10.2009 was not specifically for the respondent but a general upgradation.
- The first benefit under the RACP Scheme was given on 05.06.2010.
- The benefit given on 24.02.2015 was the second benefit under the RACP Scheme.
- The Tribunal rightly allowed the claim of the respondent for the benefit on 24.02.2015.
- Circulars and clarifications by the Finance Department were relied upon by both parties.
- The High Court did not provide reasons for dismissing the Writ Petition.
- The matter should be remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision after considering all contentions.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Decision
- Rejoinders may be filed within two weeks after the appellants’ filing.
- The High Court is urged to decide the Writ Petitions promptly, preferably within six months.
- No costs are ordered.
- Appellants are permitted to file additional affidavits within four weeks of the revived Writ Petitions.
- Respondent can file additional counter affidavits within three weeks post appellants’ filing.
Case Title: THE STATE OF ODISHA Vs. SATYA NARAYAN BEHURA (2020 INSC 235)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001851-001851 / 2020
