IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 679 OF 2007 Ganesh Chandra Ramola and others.………….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……….Respondents. Present: Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioners were initially appointed as Routine Clerk/Junior Clerk in the Treasury and Accounts Service in the erstwhile State of U.P. between 1984-1987. At the relevant time, the services of the petitioner were governed by Uttar Pradesh Treasuries Ministerial Service Rules, 1978. In the year 1987 by means of a Government Order, the nomenclature of the posts of Routine Clerk/Junior Clerk was changed to that of Assistant Accountant (Treasury) Grade-II. Subsequently, vide order dated 31.3.1990, this nomenclature was changed to Assistant Accountant (Treasury) and from that to Assistant Accountant (Treasury) Grade-II, and the pay scale was also changed from 950 –1500 to 1200-2040. 3. It appears that there was different ratio between the posts of Accountant (Treasury) and Assistant Accountant (Treasury), but vide order dated 6.8.1998, the posts of Accountant (Treasury) and Assistant Accountant (Treasury) were changed in the proportion of 80:20. It appears that 2 earlier the ratio was much less inasmuch as there were lesser number of Accountant (Treasury) and the number of Assistant Accountants (Treasury) were larger. Vide order dated 6.8.1998 there were now more posts of Accountant (Treasury) and less posts of Assistant Accountant (Treasury). That is why, the new ratio is 80:20. As a necessary corollary to this, many of the Assistant Accountants (Treasury) would now become Accountant (Treasury). This they would become by virtue of their seniority. Before such order was passed, there were about 422 posts of Accountant (Treasury) and 1866 posts of Assistant Accountant (Treasury), but with the aforesaid order, now these posts were clubbed together and the total number of posts would become 2288 and out of these total number of posts, 1829 posts would be of Accountant (Treasury) and 459 posts of Assistant Accountant (Treasury). In other words by the said order, 1407 posts of Assistant Accountant (Treasury) were upgraded to that of Accountant (Treasury). As a necessary corollary, many of these Assistant Accountants (Treasury) would now become Accountant (Treasury). This position was further explained by Government Order dated 12.10.1998. According to the petitioner, petitioner no. 1 was now re-designated as Accountant (Treasury) w.e.f. 6.11.1984, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 re-designated as Accountant (Treasury) w.e.f. 26.4.1986 and petitioner nos. 4 and 5 were re-designated as Accountant (Treasury) w.e.f. 1.11.1987. Subsequently, a clarification given by the Government on 25.5.2000 as there was some confusion as to whether a three years’ mandatory period of service on the post of Assistant Accountant (Treasury) would be necessary or that would stand waked on account of conversion / change of nomenclature of the above posts. Vide clarification dated 3 25.5.2000, which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, it was clarified that the ratio of 80:20 will be applicable to those persons who have been appointed between 1.1.1986 to 31.3.1989 and it was further clarified that the Assistant Accountants (Treasury) would not become Accountant (Treasury) immediately, but would become Accountant (Treasury) after they have completed three years of service on the said post. This being the stated position, this Court has been informed at the Bar by Sri Sudhir Singh, counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being treated as Accountant (Treasury) from the date they have completed three years on the post of Assistant Accountant (Treasury) and not from the order by which the posts were converted into the ratio of 80:20. Now the only controversy in the petition is that as to whether the petitioners are liable to be treated as Accountant (Treasury) from the date the conversion was made or after they have completed three years as Assistant Accountant (Treasury). From the Government Order as well as the clarification made thereon, it is absolutely clear that the re- designation of the petitioners’ post on the new pay-scale would be granted to them after they have completed three years as Assistant Accountant (Treasury). Therefore, the petitioners would be treated as Accountant (Treasury) only from the date from which they have put in three years of service on the post of Assistant Accountant (Treasury). 4. The instant writ petition has, therefore, no merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. It is, however, clarified that in case the salary of Accountant has already been made to the petitioners, for the period for which, it 4 was not liable to be given in view of three years’ embargo, the same shall not be recovered from them as there is no misrepresentation or fraud on part of the petitioners. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.2.2011 Rathour