THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.29207 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The short question, which arises for consideration in this writ petition is: “Whether the petitioners are entitled to Special Grade/Special Promotion Post I/Special Promotion Post II under automatic advancement scheme by computing the period of service rendered by them as Copyists/Readers/Examiners.” The 1st petitioner, who was appointed as Copyist on 10-03- 1983, was subsequently promoted as Junior Assistant on 16-11-1987. The 2nd petitioner, who was appointed as Copyist on 01-10-1982, was promoted as Junior Assistant on 16-07-1985. The 3rd petitioner was appointed as Reader on 22-10-1983 and his services were utilized as L.D.C. from 13-03-1984 to 08-07-1984 temporarily and thereafter he was promoted as Junior Assistant on 23-05-1987. The 4th petitioner, who was appointed as Copyist on 01-01-1984, was promoted as Typist on 25- 10-1986. The 5th petitioner, who was appointed as Copyist on 05-11- 1983, was promoted as Typist on 14-04-1988. All the petitioners made a representation for reckoning the services rendered by them as Copyists/Readers/Examiners for the purpose of sanction of Special Grade/Special Promotion Post I/Special Promotion Post II under automatic advancement scheme. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.117 Finance & Planning (FW P.R.C-I) Department, dated 25-05-1981 introduced a scheme called “automatic advancement scheme”. The scheme inter alia provides all employees to whom these orders apply and who have completed the prescribed period of service or appointment to special grade posts or special temporary promotion posts or special adhoc promotion posts, as the case may be, on the date on which these orders come into force shall be eligible for appointment to special grade posts/special temporary promotion posts/special adhoc promotion posts, as the case may be, who are continued in the same post for a specific period, namely, every employee after a service of 10 years in a particular scale shall be eligible for the next higher scale, in Schedule-I to the Andhra Pradesh Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1978. For the purpose of computation of 10 years of service referred to in Part I i.e., Special Grade Post all service that counts for increment in the scale shall be taken into account. Where promotion posts are available under normal service rules: a special temporary promotion post, an employee who completes a period of 15 years in a particular scale as on 31st August of each year shall be eligible for promotion to the next higher post in the regular line of promotion from the post hold by him under the service rules applicable to the post. Those posts shall be called “Special Temporary Promotion Posts”. The Government through its letter No.PAO/Cord.114/89-93, dated 13-05- 1993 clarified the position in para 4(vii) of the Government Order. It is not disputed that the post of Junior Assistant Category-IV is a promotion post from the post of Examiner/Reader of Category- VII/Copyist of Category-VIII. The time scale of pay at the time of initial appointment of the petitioners as Examiner/Reader Category- VII/Copyist Category—VIII and scale of pay of Junior Assistant are identical and same position continued till 1986, but in the pay revision 1993 and 1998 the time scale of post of Junior Assistant is higher than that of Examiner/Reader/Copyist. The 1st petitioner though given regular promotion as Junior Assistant on 16-11-1987, he was appointed to the Special Grade Scale w.e.f. 01-07-1991 (on completion of 8 years of service as Copyist and L.D.C.) in terms of above G.O. by proceedings dated 18- 04-2002. On regular promotion he claims the benefit under FR 22 r/w 31 on identical nature of pay scale. The other petitioners 2 to 5 were denied such a reckoning of their service in the post of Copyist/Reader though same was the scale of pay on their promotion as Junior Assistant and they were also not granted the benefit of FR22 r/w 31. Therefore, they made a representation to the Unit Head, MSJ, Hyderabad. The said representation was forwarded to the High Court through the MSJ through his letter dated 24-04-2008 seeking clarification whether the petitioners are entitled to sanction of Special Grade Post/Promotion Post I under automatic advancement scheme by computing the entire service in the said category. On placing the matter before the High Court, the Committee of the Honourable Judges constituted to look into the matter of A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, rejected the request of the petitioners. Accordingly, the High Court by its order dated 10-11-2008 vide ROC. No.869/2008-C-6, passed the following order: “The scheme introduced by the State Government is for relieving the stagnation of employees. If a Copyist or a Reader earns promotion, as per APJMS rules, to the posts of Junior Assistant or Typist, though they carry the same scale of pay, they cannot be treated as to have stagnated as Copyist or Reader. Hence, the High Court does not consider that they are entitled to reckon such service along with the service of Junior Assistant or Typist and then claim the pay benefit.” Questioning the correctness of the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the then Metropolitan Sessions Judge, through his proceedings in Dis.No.2029/MSJ/Hyd/2002 dt.18.04.2002 fixed the pay scale of the first petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.117 Finance & Planning (FW PRC-I) Dept., dated 25.05.1991, but the same has not been approved by this Court. He also contended that since petitioners 2 to 5 have not been granted Special Grade Scale on completion of 8 years, they are entitled to fixation of pay as per the Revised Pay Scale. Further, they are also entitled to the benefit of advance increment on completion of 16 years. On the other hand, Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Standing Counsel for APHC, contended that the first petitioner, who was promoted as Junior Assistant on 16-11-1987, was given Special Grade Scale w.e.f. 01.07.1991 taking into account the service rendered by him in both the posts of Copyist and L.D.C, but the same is not correct since as per Revised Pay Scales in 1993 and 1998, the time scale for the post of Junior Assistant is higher than that of Examiner/Reader/Copyist. The same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of conferring them on Special Promotion Post. He further contended that the Government though clarified that Amins/Bailiffs/Copyists/ Examiners/Readers and L.D Clerks are entitled to the benefit of Special Grade Post/Promotional Post by computing the entire service in the said category in the revised pay scales of 1978/1986/1993, the request of the petitioners for computing the service rendered in the posts of Copyist/Reader/Examiner for the purpose of sanction of Special Promotion Posts cannot be considered. He further contended that on completion of 8 years service, petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled to be placed in Special Grade Scale in the Revised Pay Scale of 1993 and that since there is no stagnation of the petitioners on promoting to the post of Junior Assistants, they are not entitled to the pay benefit. He also pointed out that the Government in G.O.(P).No.290 dated 22.07.1993 clarified that on completion of 8 years, which counts for increment, an employee is eligible to be placed in the Special Grade Scale, in the Revised Pay Scales of 1993. Further, on completion of 16 years service which counts for increments, an employee shall be eligible to be placed in the scale of the post next above the post held by him which happens to be the promotion post under the relevant service rules, provided he is fully qualified to be promoted to such promotion post, provided also that such a post should belong to the regular line and not outside the regular line. This scale shall be called the “Special Promotion Post Scale.” In view of the same, and since there is no stagnation of the petitioners in the posts of Junior Assistant, they are not entitled to 16 years pay benefit. The scheme relating to creation of Special Grade Posts/Special Temporary Promotion Posts/Special Adhoc Promotion Posts issued in G.O.Ms.No.117, dated 25.05.1981 is evolved for relieving the stagnation of employees in a particular scale so as to move them to next higher scale, in Schedule-1 to the Andhra Pradesh Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1978. A Full Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.16101 of 1989 and batch held that the posts of Junior Assistant (L.D.C), Typist and Steno- typist, which are in the category of 5 of Division IV of the A.P.Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 1964 are promotion posts for the persons holding the posts of Examiner, Reader and Copyist in view of the definition of “Promotion” contained in Rule 2(1)(o) of the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 1964; that all these posts including the post of Junior Assistant (L.D.C) carry the same time-scale of pay with effect from 1-4-1978 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.235 Finance (PRC-I) Department dated 17.09.1979 and that the petitioners therein, who are all members of the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service are governed by the Fundamental Rules by virtue of Rule 3 of the said Rules. By interpreting F.R.22-B, the Full Bench also held that if the post held by an employee previously and the post to which he is promoted, carry the same time-scale of pay, he will not be entitled to the benefit of F.R.22-B; that having regard to the fact that the posts of Examiner, Copyist and Reader as well as the promotion post of Junior Assistant (L.D.C) etc., carry the same time-scale of pay with effect from 1.4.1978, the last pay drawn in the posts of Examiner, Reader and Copyist alone is protected in view of the proviso to F.R.22, which is made applicable by the last proviso to F.R.22-B, and therefore, the impugned letters of the first respondent-Government stating that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of F.R.22-B of the Fundamental Rules in view of the fact that the time-scale of pay attached to the posts are identical, are in accordance with the last proviso to F.R.22-B read with the proviso to F.R.22. The Full Bench after considering various provisions held that in view of the identical scale of pay Rs.425-10-455-15-650 attached to the posts of Junior Assistant (LDC), Examiner, Reader and Copyist by virtue of the revised pay scales introduced with effect from 1.4.1978, the petitioners, who were promoted subsequent to 1.4.1978 are not entitled for the benefits under F.R.22-B, and accordingly dismissed the writ petitions. It is not in dispute that in the instant case all the petitioners have worked in feeder category and were promoted as Junior Assistants subsequently. The first petitioner though given regular promotion as Junior Assistant on 16.11.1987, on completion of 8 years service as Copyist and LDC he was given pay benefit w.e.f. 01.07.1991 and petitioners 2 to 5, who are promoted as Junior Assistants, are also entitled to the benefit of Special Grade Scale on completion of 8 years of service on par with the first petitioner. Hence, promotion as per A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 1964 to the post of Junior Assistant, was carried on the same scale of pay, but from 1993 onwards the pay to both the categories i.e., Copyist/Reader/Examiner and Junior Assistant is not equal. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was stagnation in the same scale. In view of the same, the decision taken by the High Court in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for pay benefit on completion of 16 years cannot be found fault with and the same is in accordance with the scheme introduced by the Government. In the circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that petitioners 2 to 5 though are entitled to the pay benefit on par with the first petitioner, the same was not granted to him. The learned Standing Counsel for APHC submitted that petitioners 2 to 5 would also be given the pay benefit on completion of 8 years, but not to the pay benefit on completion of 16 years. Recording the above said submission, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 29-12-2009 Murthy/va