G. R. Baqual v. State of Jammu & Kashmir

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1584 of 1968. Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 21, 1966 of the J ammu and Kashmir High Court in Writ Petition No. 40 of 1965. A. S. R. Chari, K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, for the appelll\nt. N. S. Bindra, R. N. Sachthe,v and B. D. Sharma, for respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah C.J. This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, December 21 1966 dismissing a petition under Art. 32(2-A) of the Jammu & Kash: mir Constitution filed by the petitioner/appellant G. R. Baqual G. R. BAQUAL v. :t. &-K. STATE (Hidayatullah, C.J.) for certain reliefs on the ground that be J:ias been discriminated against and -punished without rect>urse to statutory provis10~s and procedure. The facts of the case are as .follows : The appellant who, is a Graduate of. the Punjab University entered the Secretariat service of the Janunu & Kashmir State OI)

Novembed!,,JJ946 as a clerk. Later he was promoted as Superm, tendent on September 26, 1957 and was holding a grade of Rs. 150-15-300 \revised 200-20-300-25-400). He was then appointed as Persorial Assistant in gazetted rank in the grade of Rs. 200-400 (revised 250-25-350-30-500) and became P.A. to the Chairman of the Legislative Council by his order dated October 23, 1959. The appellant was then transferred to the Civil Secretariat as an Under-Secretary on September 30, 1963 under Government orders in the same grade of Rs. 250-500. He claimed seniority against other Under-Secretaries when on Apnl 14,. 1964, the Government promoted four Under-Secreta~ to the - post of Deputy Secretaries in the pay scale of Rs. 450-800 which included three of the respondents in this appeal. He was not promoted and he ,claimed that he was so entitled both on his seniority and under the statutory rules.

The case of the appellant is almost entirely based upon his appointment as Personal Assistant to ·the Chahman of the Legislative Council which is equated with an Under-Secretary under the Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Council Secretariat (Regulation and cQllditions of Service) Rules, 1959. Under these rules, a.PA. to the Chainnan of the'Le~islative Council is equated to a P.A. to a Minister and he is in his tum equated with an Under- Secretary and enjoys the same scale of pay. This scale of pay is certainly higher than the scale of pay \which the Superintendent geL~. It was admitted before us that the appellant was not senior to the other Superintendents in the substantive post of Superintendent. In other words, if everything had been equal, he would be junior to respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and would take his tum for promot~on after them. He claims seniority on the basis of his deputation as P.A. to the Chairman of the Legislative Council and his supposed equation to an Under-Secretary.

As a matter of fact, he was not promoted as_Under-Secretl!lry. He was orily selected to serve as P.A. and that carried the pay and the gazetted rank. It happens frequently in service that such selections are ma~ p~rticularly. in. Secr~arial line by Ministers, Chairman of Legislative Council or Speaker. Even in this Court such selections are made of persons to serve as Secretaries to the Hon'ble Judges. 1:llis selectiori carr!es more pay while it lasts and gives a rank which the holder en1oys as a gazetted officer, but. it does SUPREMll COURT REPORTS not confer any more privilege. In matters of proml)tion and rankiqg, the substantive posts matter, anli here, the . appellant admits that he was junior to the others. . His appointment to a post which in emoluments was equal to that of an Undor-Secre-. tary was not in the regular line.

It was by selection and could not therefore confer on him any privilege beyond holding that pC!St as long as the Chairman of the Legislative Council would have him as his Personal Assistant. The appellant tried to prove his case by referen'ce to rule 24 of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. But that rule also says that the seniority of a person has. reference to the service, class, category or grade with reference to wbicli the question bad arisen and that such seniority shall be determined by the date of his first appointment in such class, service, category or. grade as the case may be. Here the service on. which emphasis should be placed is the post of Superintendent and there, the appellant admiis that he is junior to respondents 2, 3 and 4. Therefore, neither on the basis of the statutory rule nor on t'1e . basis of any practice or convention is he entitled to.seniority fro'll the post of Superintendent to the next grade.

He must take his tum in accordance with bis seniority as Superintendent which was his substantive po>t when his depuhtion began. We see no force in this appeal which sh~'.I be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. V.P.S. Appeal dismi.ised