Probationers Not Entitled To Appraisals From Date Of Appointment Automatically When Requisite Is Subject To Target Achieved & Approval: SC
The Supreme Court while allowing the appeal in part quashed the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka which had directed an addition to the existing pay to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) from the date of their initial appointment automatically.
“…It is observed and directed that the original writ petitioners shall be entitled to the additional 2% in addition to the existing pay to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), however, subject to the conditions as mentioned in the D.O./order dated 02.06.2008, namely, subject to achieving the performance targets by the concerned officers”, a bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar while setting aside the order observed.
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj appeared on behalf of the appellants and Senior Advocate P.V. Surendranath appeared for the respondents.
In the pertinent matter the original writ petitioners –the respondent employees in the case were appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) in the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited on October 6, 2007.
The corporation issued a department order dated September 27, 2006, revising the pay scales with effect from April 1, 2003. Subsequently, another order was issued stating that with effect from April 1, 2003, considering the hard work of the employees the Corporation shall consider a pay hike of 2% where while sanctioning the hike an appropriate target may be fixed, and sanction may be obtained from the management.
In another order dated June 02, 2008, granting the approval for revision of pay scales by 12% (10+2%) effecting from April 1, 2003 was issued and that from April 1, 2009, the differential amount to be released after achieving the performance targets by the concerned officers.
It was alleged by the original respondent-petitioner in the appeal, that since the appellant(s) were not appointed as of April 1 2003 and they were appointed subsequently in the year 2007 and, therefore, not entitled to the additional 2% without doing the hard work.
Therefore, in the matter, the dispute was the addition of 2% while there was no dispute with respect to the 10% addition.
The Supreme Court, although negated the contention of the respondents holding that “it has no substance”, however, noted that “…ASG appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) is justified in making the submission that the original writ petitioners shall not be entitled to the additional 2% automatically and that too from the date of their initial appointment. It is to be noted that even as per D.O./order dated June 2, 2008 while sanctioning 2% hike in pay appropriate target was required to be fixed and accordingly, their sanction from the management for the said proposal was required to be obtained. From April 1, 2009, the differential amount towards 2% pay revision was required to be released after achieving the performance targets by the concerned officers and their first appraisal was to be conducted in April, 2009 and the second appraisal was to be conducted in April, 2010”.
“Therefore, as such the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have materially erred in directing to revise the pay scale by adding 2% to the basic pay automatically that too from the date of their appointment. It is required to be noted that in the first year all the writ petitioners were appointed as probationers and as per the Rules, as probationers they were to be put in the minimum basic pay scale which at the relevant time was Rs. 9,470”, the bench further added.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
Cause Title: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Sri. B. G. Manamohana Priyanka & Ors.