Employee Who Deliberately Delays Joining Promotional Post To Claim Special Grade Benefits Not Entitled To Such Benefits: Madras High Court
The Court held that an employee who had already been promoted before completion of the qualifying service period could not claim Special Grade benefits by postponing assumption of charge of the promotional post until after completing the requisite years of service.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar, Justice M. Jothiraman, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has held that an employee who was promoted before completion of the qualifying period for the grant of Special Grade cannot claim such benefits by delaying assumption of charge of the promotional post.
Upholding the revision of pay fixation made by the Accountant General, the Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging the denial of Special Grade benefits to an Agricultural Officer who joined the promotional post only after completing twenty years of service.
The Court was hearing a writ appeal filed against an order of a Single Judge dismissing a challenge to orders passed by the Accountant General revising the appellant's pay fixation.
A Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman observed: “Once an employee has been promoted prior to the completion of the qualifying period, he would not ordinarily be entitled to the benefits of Special Grade. In the present case, although the appellant was promoted on 17.12.2012, he went on medical leave and assumed charge of the promotional post only on 20.01.2013, after completing 20 years of service. Therefore, the very conduct of the appellant clearly indicates that he delayed joining the promotional post only in order to gain the benefits in special grade, which he is not entitled.”
Advocate T. Pradeep appeared for the appellant. M. Mohaboob Athiff, Counsel for State, and P. Gunasekaran, Standing Counsel, appeared for the respondents.
Background
The appellant was initially appointed as an Agricultural Officer and subsequently became eligible for consideration for higher responsibilities in service. Before completing twenty years of service in the cadre of Agricultural Officer, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director.
The dispute arose when the Accountant General revised the appellant's pay fixation after taking note of his promotion. Aggrieved by the revision, the appellant approached the High Court, contending that he had completed twenty years of service and was therefore entitled to Special Grade benefits. The challenge was rejected by the learned Single Judge, leading to the filing of the present writ appeal.
Before the Division Bench, the appellant argued that he had completed the requisite qualifying service and that he was entitled to Special Grade benefits on the date he resumed duty after medical leave. He contended that the respondents were not justified in reducing the benefits that had been extended to him.
Court's Observations
The Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the appellant having completed twenty years of service. Equally undisputed, however, was the fact that he had already been promoted to the post of Assistant Director before the completion of the qualifying period required for the grant of Special Grade benefits.
Explaining the legal consequences of such promotion, the Bench held that an employee who secures promotion before completion of the qualifying service period would ordinarily cease to be eligible for Special Grade benefits attached to the lower post.
The Court then examined the appellant's conduct in not immediately assuming charge of the promotional post. In substance, the Bench found that although promotion had already been granted, the appellant assumed charge of the higher post only after completion of the qualifying service period. According to the Court, the sequence of events clearly indicated an attempt to secure Special Grade benefits despite the promotion having already been granted.
The Bench further noted that the Accountant General had revised the pay fixation after taking into account the promotion and the appellant's ineligibility for Special Grade benefits in the circumstances of the case. The Court found no error in the approach adopted by the authorities.
Agreeing with the findings of the learned Single Judge, the Court held that the challenge mounted by the appellant was devoid of merit. The Bench observed that the learned Single Judge had correctly concluded that the appellant was not entitled to claim Special Grade benefits after having already been promoted to the higher post.
Conclusion
Finding no infirmity either in the revision of pay fixation carried out by the Accountant General or in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ appeal. The Court consequently upheld the denial of Special Grade benefits claimed by the appellant.
Cause Title: M. Balasubramanian v. The Director of Agriculture & Ors.