1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1172/1995 Sampat Raj Siloka v. General Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :: 13 th February, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. R.S.Shekhawat, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S.Singhvi, for the respondents. .... This petition for wit is preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction for the respondents to adopt the pay scale of Rs.2100-4020 for the post of Sr.Asstt.(Programmer) as it is prescribed for the same post in nationalised banks including the State Bank of India. The petitioner has also claimed for grant of a sum or Rs.150/- in addition to whatever allowance already given as an interim functional allowance in the basic pay and further to determine dearness allowance by adding a sum of Rs.50/- in the increased basic pay. The factual foundation, for claiming the directions as above, is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant (Clerk) with United India Insurance Company Ltd. under an order dated 10.7.1985 and by a communication dated 1.7.1991 the Regional Manager of the respondent company informed him that he was found suitable for being considered for promotion to the post of programmer. An order dated 17.7.1991 thereafter was passed promoting the petitioner as 2 Sr.Asstt.(Programmer) with a functional allowance of Rs.150/- per month. The Regional Manager of the respondent company under a communication dated 7.11.1991 communicated to all Divisional and Branch Offices about decision of the company that if an employee promoted under para 29-A of the Promotion Policy as Sr.Asstt.(Programmer) from the cadre of Assistant and is not willing to work as programmer, he would be reverted to his pre-promoted cadre of Assistant. The petitioner thereafter by various representations claimed for grant of an independent pay scale pertaining to the post of programmer instead of functional allowance of Rs.150/-. Being failed to get any positive response from the respondents, this petition for writ is preferred. In reply to the writ petition it is contended by the respondents that there is no cadre of programmer in the service of the company and it is only a cadre of Sr.Asstt., for that an Assistant (Clerk) is entitled to be promoted. It is further stated that according to para 29-A of the Promotion Policy an employee satisfying eligibility norms prescribed in para 29 for promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant on passing Aptitude Test for the post of Programmer, shall be eligible to work as programmer. It is emphasised that as a matter of fact there is no cadre of Sr.Asstt.(Programmer) and a designation with this term was created from among the 3 Sr.Asstts. already working looking to the functional needs and for that purpose a functional allowance in a tune of Rs.150/- is given to the Sr.Asstts. whose services are utilised as Sr.Asstt.(Programmer). It is also pointed out by the respondents that the term “promotion to the cadre of programmer” was referred in the communication dated 1.7.1991 by mistake and it was rectified under the order dated 17.7.1991, while giving promotion to the petitioner. Heard counsel for the parties. The respondents in their reply in quite unambiguous terms have stated that there is no cadre of programmer in their service and it is only the cadre of Sr.Asstt. to that the promotion is required to be given from the post of Assistant (Clerk). The promotion was given to the petitioner under the order dated 17.7.1991 as Sr.Asstt. and the term “programmer” is mentioned in the aforesaid as an additional work of programmer, is required to be taken from him. It is not at all disputed that the pay scale pertaining to the post of Sr.Asstt. has already been given to the petitioner and a functional allowance in a tune of Rs.150/- is also given to him on utilising his service as programmer. Once the respondents have stated that no cadre of programmer exists in their service, no direction can be issued to provide a specific pay scale for that post, as such the relief claimed by the 4 petitioner for providing a distinct pay scale pertaining to the post of programmer is absolutely misconceived. Accordingly, this petition for writ is having no merit and the same, therefore, is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.