Case: THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA Vs. J.R. WILLIAM SINGH

dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991 it was not clarified that such of those who had earlier been covered under Clause 1(v) of the settlement dated 10.01.1984 and who had been granted the scale of an Assistant, would not be entitled to any further time- bound promotion under the settlement dated 02.08.1988, or for that matter, of the further settlement dated 15.06.1991 and therefore in the absence of any exclusion of such of those who had been granted the pay-scale of an Assistant, would be entitled to the next higher pay-scale of the Section Officer on completion of requisite years of service in terms of settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991. However, the High Court has not properly considered the subsequent settlement dated 02.08.1988. The High Court has absolutely mis-read and mis-interpreted the settlement dated 02.08.1988 when it has come to the conclusion, so stated in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment and order, that in the subsequent settlement dated 02.08.1988 there is no specific exclusion which was there under the special Clause 1(v) of the settlement dated 10.01.1984. In the memorandum of settlement dated 02.08.1988, the only change was with respect to the time gap for promotion under the TBPS as per the earlier settlement dated 10.01.1984 and the period for getting the promotion under the TBPS came to be reduced. That was the only change/modification. In the memorandum of settlement dated 02.08.1988 it has been specifically provided and so stated that except for and subject to the changes made by the said settlement, namely, reduction of time period for getting the promotion under the TBPS, all other terms and conditions relating to the TBPS, as contained in the settlement/agreement dated 10.01.1984, shall remain in force and be applicable during the period of the said agreement. By a subsequent settlement dated 15.06.1991 the period was further reduced. Therefore, whatever was stated/provided in the settlement/agreement dated 10.01.1984, more particularly, Clause 1(v) and the subsequent decision of the President dated 25.02.1984 continued to be in operation. Therefore, those employees like the respondent herein serving as Electricians etc. were not entitled to any promotion under the TBPS, as contained in the settlement/agreement dated 10.01.1984 and/or such subsequent memorandum of settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991. Being an Electrician, the respondent was already given the pay- scale of an Assistant as per the decision of the President dated 25.02.1984, which was as per Clause 1(v) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10.01.1984. Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error in observing and holding that the respondent shall be entitled to promotion under the TBPS as per the memorandum of settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991. At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that the employees of ICAI were governed by the memorandum of settlement dated 10.1.1984 so far as the time-bound promotion is concerned and the subsequent settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991 were in continuation of the same. No new rights of promotion under the TBPS were conferred under the memorandum of settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991. 7. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent that subsequently even the respondent was working as a Section Officer and, therefore, shall be entitled to promotion under the TBPS to the post of Section Officer is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such there was no specific order of promotion promoting the respondent to the post of Section Officer. For some time, the respondent was directed to look after the work of Diary/Dispatch Section. However, his designation came to be continued as Electrician. Merely because an employee is given a temporary charge to do a particular work of a particular post, it cannot be said that in fact he has been promoted to the said post. At this stage, it is required to be noted that subsequently when the respondent was transferred in the year 2005 from Noida Office (Electrician) to Kanpur DCO (Electrician), the respondent opposed the said transfer contending, inter alia, that there is no post of an Electrician at Kanpur and therefore he should be continued at Noida (Electrician). Therefore, even on 04.03.2005, the respondent himself claimed to be the Electrician. Therefore, now it is not open to the respondent that he was already promoted to the post of Section Officer in the year 1996. Therefore also, the High Court has committed a grave error in directing the appellant to promote the respondent to the post of Section Officer under the TBPS. However, at the same time, the respondent shall be entitled to the same salary of Section Officer for the period during which he worked as a Section Officer either on officiating basis and/or he was given the charge, if not paid so far. 8. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent that if the respondent is not promoted to the post of Section Officer under the TBPS, in that case, the object and purpose of providing the promotion under the TBPS, namely, to remove the stagnation at the work place shall be frustrated is concerned, it is true that the TBPS is intended to remove the stagnation at the work place. However, at the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the promotion shall be governed as per the promotion scheme only. At no point of time, Clause 1(v) of the main settlement dated 10.01.1984 and the decision of the President dated 25.02.1984 not providing any promotion under the TBPS so far as Electrician etc. are concerned, has been challenged. It is not that there is a complete stagnation so far as the respondent is concerned. He has been granted the next higher grade as per the decision of the President dated 25.02.1984 which was as per Clause 1(v) of the main settlement dated 10.01.1984. It is to be noted that, being an employee and the member of the Employees? Association, the settlement arrived at between the management and its Employees? Association was binding on the respondent.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the dispute is with respect to the promotion under the TBPS. An employee is entitled to the promotion under the TBPS only in accordance with the scheme and the promotion to the next higher post is provided under the TBPS. It is to be noted that, in the present case, the terms and conditions of the service of the employees of the appellant-ICAI were governed by the settlements/agreements arrived at from time to time between ICAI and its Employees? Association. The first settlement/agreement was arrived at on 10.01.1984 which, inter alia, provided for Time-bound promotions/change to the next grade for its Class III and Class IV employees. It provided that if any LDC had already completed five years in the pay-scale of Rs.260-400 he is to be placed in the pay-scale of UDC-Steno Typist i.e. Rs.330-560 and so on. Under Clause 1(v) of the said settlement/agreement, it was specifically provided that in respect of cases not falling under the two broad categories i.e. Clause III and Class IV, the decision was to be taken by the President of ICAI. This included the cases of Jamadar, Driver and Electrician. The respondent was an Electrician and therefore he was governed under Clause 1(v) of the settlement dated 10.01.1984. In terms of Clause 1(v) of the settlement/agreement dated 10.10.1984 which was arrived at between ICAI and its Employees? Association, the President of ICAI took a decision on 25.02.1984, by which it was provided that Jamadars, Drivers, Electricians etc., as mentioned in Clause 1(v) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10.01.1984, shall only be entitled to get the next grade. Accordingly, the respondent herein was put in the pay scale of Rs.330-560 and his basic pay was fixed at Rs.370/- with retrospective effect from 01.01.1984. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the said fixation was in accordance with the decision taken by the President of ICAI dated 25.02.1984. That, thereafter the respondent was granted the next higher pay-scale of the grade of Assistant i.e. Rs.425-800. That, thereafter the next settlement between ICAI and its Employees? Association was arrived at on 02.08.1988 and thereafter in the year 1991. On a bare reading of the subsequent settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991 it appears that only the time gap for promotion under the TBPS came to be reduced. According to the respondent, there was no such clarification/clause like Clause 1(v) of the settlement/agreement dated 10.01.1984 excluding the post of Jamadar, Electrician etc. in the subsequent settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991 and therefore he was entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant and thereafter to the post of Section Officer. The High Court in paragraph 17 has accepted the same and has observed and held that in the subsequent settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991 it was not clarified that such of those who had earlier been covered under Clause 1(v) of the settlement dated 10.01.1984 and who had been granted the scale of an Assistant, would not be entitled to any further time- bound promotion under the settlement dated 02.08.1988, or for that matter, of the further settlement dated 15.06.1991 and therefore in the absence of any exclusion of such of those who had been granted the pay-scale of an Assistant, would be entitled to the next higher pay-scale of the Section Officer on completion of requisite years of service in terms of settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991. However, the High Court has not properly considered the subsequent settlement dated 02.08.1988. The High Court has absolutely mis-read and mis-interpreted the settlement dated 02.08.1988 when it has come to the conclusion, so stated in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment and order, that in the subsequent settlement dated 02.08.1988 there is no specific exclusion which was there under the special Clause 1(v) of the settlement dated 10.01.1984. In the memorandum of settlement dated 02.08.1988, the only change was with respect to the time gap for promotion under the TBPS as per the earlier settlement dated 10.01.1984 and the period for getting the promotion under the TBPS came to be reduced. That was the only change/modification. In the memorandum of settlement dated 02.08.1988 it has been specifically provided and so stated that except for and subject to the changes made by the said settlement, namely, reduction of time period for getting the promotion under the TBPS, all other terms and conditions relating to the TBPS, as contained in the settlement/agreement dated 10.01.1984, shall remain in force and be applicable during the period of the said agreement. By a subsequent settlement dated 15.06.1991 the period was further reduced. Therefore, whatever was stated/provided in the settlement/agreement dated 10.01.1984, more particularly, Clause 1(v) and the subsequent decision of the President dated 25.02.1984 continued to be in operation. Therefore, those employees like the respondent herein serving as Electricians etc. were not entitled to any promotion under the TBPS, as contained in the settlement/agreement dated 10.01.1984 and/or such subsequent memorandum of settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991. Being an Electrician, the respondent was already given the pay- scale of an Assistant as per the decision of the President dated 25.02.1984, which was as per Clause 1(v) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10.01.1984. Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error in observing and holding that the respondent shall be entitled to promotion under the TBPS as per the memorandum of settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991. At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that the employees of ICAI were governed by the memorandum of settlement dated 10.1.1984 so far as the time-bound promotion is concerned and the subsequent settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991 were in continuation of the same. No new rights of promotion under the TBPS were conferred under the memorandum of settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991.Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent that subsequently even the respondent was working as a Section Officer and, therefore, shall be entitled to promotion under the TBPS to the post of Section Officer is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such there was no specific order of promotion promoting the respondent to the post of Section Officer. For some time, the respondent was directed to look after the work of Diary/Dispatch Section. However, his designation came to be continued as Electrician. Merely because an employee is given a temporary charge to do a particular work of a particular post, it cannot be said that in fact he has been promoted to the said post. At this stage, it is required to be noted that subsequently when the respondent was transferred in the year 2005 from Noida Office (Electrician) to Kanpur DCO (Electrician), the respondent opposed the said transfer contending, inter alia, that there is no post of an Electrician at Kanpur and therefore he should be continued at Noida (Electrician). Therefore, even on 04.03.2005, the respondent himself claimed to be the Electrician. Therefore, now it is not open to the respondent that he was already promoted to the post of Section Officer in the year 1996. Therefore also, the High Court has committed a grave error in directing the appellant to promote the respondent to the post of Section Officer under the TBPS. However, at the same time, the respondent shall be entitled to the same salary of Section Officer for the period during which he worked as a Section Officer either on officiating basis and/or he was given the charge, if not paid so far.Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent that if the respondent is not promoted to the post of Section Officer under the TBPS, in that case, the object and purpose of providing the promotion under the TBPS, namely, to remove the stagnation at the work place shall be frustrated is concerned, it is true that the TBPS is intended to remove the stagnation at the work place. However, at the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the promotion shall be governed as per the promotion scheme only. At no point of time, Clause 1(v) of the main settlement dated 10.01.1984 and the decision of the President dated 25.02.1984 not providing any promotion under the TBPS so far as Electrician etc. are concerned, has been challenged. It is not that there is a complete stagnation so far as the respondent is concerned. He has been granted the next higher grade as per the decision of the President dated 25.02.1984 which was as per Clause 1(v) of the main settlement dated 10.01.1984. It is to be noted that, being an employee and the member of the Employees? Association, the settlement arrived at between the management and its Employees? Association was binding on the respondent.