Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 552 - HC - Indian LawsBenefit of the first higher payscale to the petitioner - benefit with effect from 15.02.1991 instead of 17.09.1992 - time limitation - HELD THAT - Since the petitioner did not choose to challenge the higher pay-scale at the relevant time, and the petitioner slept for all these years since 1987 till the communication of the order dated 07.03.2003 fixing her higher pay-scale with effect from 17.09.1992, it is not open for her to claim the higher pay scale ignoring the adverse remarks. Significantly, the petitioner in the present petition has also not challenged the communication dated 06.07.1987. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
- Petition for directing the respondent authority to grant the benefit of the first higher payscale to the petitioner from 15.02.1991 instead of 17.09.1992. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction for the grant of a higher payscale from an earlier date. The petitioner's advocate argued that the denial of the higher payscale was based on adverse remarks from 1986 and 1987, which were communicated without providing an opportunity to the petitioner. The advocate cited relevant judgments to support the argument that adverse remarks communicated beyond a certain period should be ignored. 2. The State's Assistant Government Pleader contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the higher payscale from 1991 as adverse remarks in the confidential report from 1986-1987 were communicated in 1987, and the petitioner did not challenge them at that time. The State argued that as per a resolution, employees eligible for a higher payscale before a specific date are granted the scale within a set period, and adverse remarks affect the timeline for granting the higher payscale. 3. The court considered both parties' submissions and noted that the petitioner did not challenge the adverse remarks communicated in 1987 within the relevant period. The court emphasized that the adverse remarks impacted the petitioner's eligibility for the higher payscale, leading to the delay in granting it. The court pointed out that the petitioner's failure to challenge the adverse remarks in a timely manner affected the claim for the higher payscale. 4. The court analyzed the relevant resolution specifying the timeline for granting a higher payscale to eligible employees. Since the petitioner became eligible before a certain date, her confidential reports, including the adverse remarks from 1986-1987, were considered before fixing the higher payscale. The court concluded that the petitioner's failure to challenge the adverse remarks prevented her from claiming the higher payscale from an earlier date. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and dismissed the writ petition. 5. In the final judgment, the court discharged the rule, stating that the petition failed legal scrutiny based on the petitioner's failure to challenge the adverse remarks within the required timeframe. The court upheld the decision to grant the higher payscale from 17.09.1992 instead of the requested date of 15.02.1991, considering the adverse remarks communicated in 1987 and the petitioner's inaction in challenging them.
|