Adverse Entry For Specific Period Won't Bar Selection Grade Based On Subsequent Unblemished Service: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that where an adverse entry against a government servant is confined to a specified period, the service he renders after that period counts towards the ten years of satisfactory service required for grant of selection grade. It further held that a selection grade falling due on the day immediately after superannuation remains admissible to him.The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,“The adverse remark as per order dated 04.12.2004 was for the specific period from 1977 to 1994-95, meaning thereby since 01.07.1995 till 30.06.2005, petitioner had rendered unblemished service of 10 years(from 1 july 1995 to 30 june 2005) and his increment/selection grade having been due on 01.07.2005 would be admissible to petitioner despite his superannuation on 30.06.2005”Appellant was appointed as a Routine Grade Clerk in the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad in 1969. He was prosecuted under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC on the allegation that he had forged certain mark sheets, and was acquitted in two trials by judgments in 1984 and in 1994. It was admitted between the parties that the acquittals had attained finality.He remained absent from duty between 27th December 1977 and 28th July 1981, which he attributed to the mental trauma he had faced, and was permitted to resume duty in 1981 on a medical certificate. His claim for salary for that period and for promotion was rejected. After successive writ petitions, the High Court in 2004 directed the Board to pass a fresh order on grant of selection grade and promotional pay scale.By order dated 4th December 2004, the Board regularised the period of absence as extraordinary leave without pay and directed it to be counted for pension, but recorded a warning and an adverse entry in the appellant's character roll holding his work and conduct for the period 1977 to 1994-95 unbefitting a government servant. Selection grade and promotional pay scale were refused. That order was never challenged.A further writ petition led to fresh consideration, which was again refused by order dated 30th November 2009. The writ court dismissed the challenge to that order, holding that the pre-requisite of satisfactory service was lacking. The appellant then invoked the intra-court appellate jurisdiction of the Court.It was argued for the appellant that though the order dated 4th December 2004 had not been challenged, it was no impediment to grant of promotional pay scale and selection grade, since the Court had subsequently directed the claim to be considered afresh despite that order subsisting. It was also argued that the adverse entries had never been communicated to him.The Court rejected the contentions. It held that the order of the High Court had not required the authorities to ignore the order dated 4th December 2004, which remained intact for want of interference in the earlier round of litigation. It observed that it had always been open to the appellant to challenge the order of 4th December 2004, which itself recorded the adverse entry. The Court noted that counsel had fairly conceded that no such challenge was laid.The appellant thereafter sought modification of the relief, asking that selection grade be granted by computing ten years of satisfactory service after 1995, the adverse entry being limited to the period ending 30 June 1995.Holding that it could mould the relief, the Court observed,“We cannot lose sight of the admitted position of law that intra court appeal as well as Writ Court exercises one and same jurisdiction as such we are vested with the power to modify the relief if it may not be granted in the manner it has been prayed for.”The question then framed was whether selection grade was permissible on a conjoint reading of various Government Orders by computing the unblemished service rendered from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 2005. The Court also noticed a Government Order dated 5th November 2014 excluding periods of unsatisfactory service from computation for financial upgradation. Since the appellant had superannuated in 2005, it held that the order was of no direct assistance.“…the practice consistently being followed by the State Government is, where an employee is granted a financial upgradation after a delay on account of not having rendered satisfactory service, such delay shall have a corresponding effect on all subsequent financial upgradations”The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in The Director (Admn. And Hr) Kptcl v. C.P. Mundinamani, where the question considered was whether an employee who has earned the annual increment is entitled to it although he retired the very next day. The Apex Court had held that an increment earned by a year of good conduct cannot be denied merely because the servant was not on the rolls on the day it became payable, and can be withheld only by way of punishment or for inefficient performance.The Court held that the completion of ten...

Adverse Entry For Specific Period Won't Bar Selection Grade Based On Subsequent Unblemished Service: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Adverse Entry For Specific Period Won't Bar Selection Grade Based On Subsequent Unblemished Service: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers