Misc. Case No. 1 of 1996 · Sifkim High Court · 2002
Case at a glance
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled only to a gazetted scale, not to a gazetted post, and that his substantive post is that of a Senior Accountant.
Outcome
Dismissed
In the result, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs
Summary
AI-generated summaryWritten by AI from the judgment text below. It is not part of the judgment and is not legal advice — read the original before relying on it.
Facts
The petitioner, a former teacher, sought a gazetted post after being granted a gazetted scale. He argued that the gazetted scale entitled him to a gazetted post.
Issues
- Whether a gazetted scale confers entitlement to a gazetted post.
- Whether the petitioner’s substantive post should be treated as a gazetted post for promotion purposes.
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled only to a gazetted scale, not to a gazetted post, and that his substantive post is that of a Senior Accountant.
Reasoning
The Court relied on earlier judgments and orders that clarified the meaning of ‘gazetted grade’ as a pay scale, not a post, and found no promotion order elevating the petitioner to a gazetted post.
Practical significance
The decision reinforces that a gazetted scale does not automatically grant a gazetted post; promotion orders are required for such a status.
Judgment
He filed writ petition NQ.5 Qf 1994 before this. High Court which was decided on 01-0.6-1995. By that Judgment, the State respcndents were. directed to implement their memorandum dated 17-Q7-19&6 and give all the benefits to bin in terms thereof. Subsequently., the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Case No.1 of 1996 and Criminal Misc. Case No. 1 Of 1996 v . cwvvwl which were .disp.o`sed Of by this Court on 2.1-0.9-1996. A copy Qf the judgment is annexed as R-3. In that judgment, the Memorandum dated 17-0.7-1996. came in tQ be intexpretated. It was held that the expression "gazetted grade" in the. memorandum did no.t mean gazetted post Qr rank and it only meant gazetted scale Qf pay. It was, therefore, held that the petitioner wo.uld continue to have gazetted scale with effect from
23.-0`4-1984 the date when he joined SIMFED as Assistant Manager with necessary annual increments and availing of the benefit of revision of the scale, if any, but fir the purpose Qf seniority etc., necessary for subsequent promotion, his substantive post should be held as that of Senior Acco.untant. The. decision to the effect that his substantive post for promotion was to. b.e deemed to be that o.f Senio,r AccQuntaat was never armulled Qr modified in any mamer by any subsequent decision on the judicial side. Leaned counsel for the petitioner admits that no order of promo.tion was also ever passed by the` Go`vemment. Even then the petitio.ner is making his. claim for holding the higher p.Qst in gazetted grade. By this. unit petition, the petitioner has challenged Qffice orders/letters Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3. Armexure P-2 is letter No`.15909/G/DQP dated 26-Q2-20.Ql issued by the GQvemment Qf Sikkim, Dep.artment of Personnel, A.R+. & Training communicating to the p`etitioner that his claim for his inter-se seniority in the Sikkim Nationalised Transport had not been supported b.y the relevant gazette notification. By Amexure. P-1, which is an Qffice order NQ.3.6ffin/SSAS dated 17-03.-20,01 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Sikkim, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Senior Accountant at Pay & Acco.unts Office, Mangan against the vacant post. By y - cywl e Amexure P-3, bearing NQ.6948/(G)/BOP dated 14-0&-200.1 the petitioner was communicated that his seniority had been fixed as Senior Accountant under the Sikkim Subordinate Accounts Service. The petitioner has challenged these orders chaining that since he is drawing gazetted scale, he is. entitled to. hold a gazetted post relevant to. that scale. He has also chained that he should be inducted in the State Civil Service cadre in the same marmer in which 10. persons were inducted vide NctificatiQn dated 20-0.7-2cO1, inexure P-11. 2-` I have. heard sfui B,` Shamra, Advocate. for the petitioner and shri S..P. Wangdi, leaned Advo. Gate General on behalf Qf the State. As regards the claim of the petitioner for induction into the State Civil Service, the No.tification dated 20-0.7-20.01 published in the Sikkim Gazette Qn
3.1-0.7-20.0.1-, Armexure P-11-, chows that 10 p`ersoas named therein were absorbed in the State Civil Service for the reason that the Government considered it expedient to absorb them as they did not belong to any organized service and they should have been inducted in the State Civil Service in 1993` when mass induction took place in the Sikkim State Civil S.ervice and having regard to their ho. Iding analogue posts as held by the members Of Silckim State Civil Service Officers. It carmot be said that the petitioner who was held by the judgment dated 21-Q9-1996. tQ be entitled o.uly to. the gazetted scale. and nut to. a gazietted post and who did not hold any analQgus po.st in terms Qf the no.tificatiQn dated 20-7-20.01 (AlineRTe P-11) fell in the same class in which the .1Q persons rrmed in that no.tification fell. Furthermore, this relief is inconsistent with the jndgmentofthis. Co.urtdated21-0.9-,1996ac`cordingtowhichthepetitioner was. held entitled to the gazetted scale and not a gazetted post. ry^. ctryrJwl
Operative part
3.. Ireamed counsel for the p.etitioner submits that vide Order No.3.0.0/G/D.QP dated 3.0-05-1996, Annexure P-5., the petitioner was transferred as. Assistant Superintendent Trasport, Sikkim NatiQnalised Transport, Gangtok which is a gazetted post and as such the petitioner sho`uld be held entitled tQ that post. Vide. Order dated 13.-08-2QQ2, the Government was required to. clarify as to. how the petitioner was transferred tQ a gazetted post. Thereafter, an affidavit dated 29.&.20.02 has been filed by Smt. D.L. llama, Additional Secretary, Department of Persomel, A.R. & Training to the effect that earlier the petitioner was ho.1ding the post of Private Secretary to the Adviser of Govt. of Sikkim which was a cQ-terminus post and since that post was a gazetted post, the Order dated 30-5-1996 was issued posting the petitioner as Assistant S.uperintendent TranspQprt, Sikkin NatiQnalised Transport by mistalce and inadvertence. It is manifest that this order was issued earlier to the date Of Judgment dated 21-09-1996 and sQ this office order camQt cloud in any lnanner the judgment of the Court. Once it has been held by this Court vide judgment dated 21-Q9-1996 that the petitioner is entitled to only gazetted scale and not a gazetted post and his substantive post is to be taken as Qf Serior Accountant for subsequent prQmQtion, his claim for higher post witho.ut any order of promotion being passed is to be adjudged only as frivo. Ious. As such, there is nQ merit in the petition. In the result, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,0.00/- (Rupees.tenthousand). ry`` cwJrwl h , ' 1,t},,i a. Dayal) Chief Justice 04-12-2002.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled only to a gazetted scale, not to a gazetted post, and that his substantive post is that of a Senior Accountant.
What was the main issue before the Court?
Whether a gazetted scale confers entitlement to a gazetted post.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Sikkim High Court, on 04 Dec 2002. The bench was DAYAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.