State Of Maharashtra And Ors. vs Uttamrao Rayala Nikam
- SCC(1994) 2 SCC 116
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an employee is entitled to cross an efficiency bar under applicable service rules, and the competent authority fails to follow the prescribed procedure for stopping such crossing—including the requirement to consider the matter annually and pass a reasoned positive order in advance—any order subsequently passed stopping the crossing of the efficiency bar is arbitrary and constitutes an unjust denial of the benefit otherwise due to the employee. The rules governing stoppage of crossing an efficiency bar contemplate a yearly exercise of consideration to permit employees to improve their performance and earn increments, and stoppage is not intended to be a permanent block for the rest of an officer's career; flagrant violation of this procedural requirement by the competent authority renders the order stopping the crossing void.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. This SLP was filed against an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Nasik dated October 1, 1992. The order stopping crossing of efficiency bar to reach his scale of pay Rs. 2800 - 4000 was quashed. The Tribunal found that the respondent reached the efficiency bar on October 1, 1982. Earlier he was compulsorily retired but by order of the court he remained in service. Under the rules made by the Government, the process should be made well in advance and record should be considered and a positive order should be made by the competent authority to pass an order stopping giving the increment due to the efficiency bar. Till September 1984, no order has been passed by the competent authority. The Reporting Officer in 1984 found the record of the respondent satisfactory and also recommended for his promotion. Yet the Supervisory Officer appears to have recorded that he cannot be promoted. On that basis, he passed an order on September 14, 1984 stopping the efficiency bar by which time he had already passed three years which he would have been entitled to in the normal course. Rules also postulate that every year they should consider and repeat the exercise. The reason is obvious. The officer due to efforts would improve his efficiency of service to earn his increments. So stoppage of increment is not an all-time and permanent stagnant block for the rest of the career. So wholesome procedure of yearly meticulous exercise of duty was envisaged under the rules but flagrantly violated and for inexplicable reasons the exercise was not done. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly pointed out that stopping of crossing the efficiency bar is arbitrary and we hold it unjust and unfair. Yet the petitioner has chosen with no responsibility in filing the SLP in this Court with no ghost of a chance of success. Therefore, the SLP was filed needlessly and irresponsibly. Accordingly, the SLP is dismissed with the exemplary cost of Rs. 5000. This amount should be deducted from the personal pay of the officer/officers who has/have recommended to file this SLP. The Chief Secretary, Maharashtra Government, is directed to deduct this amount from the personal pay of the officer/officers concerned and send it to the Account of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee which would correspond with the Chief Secretary for collection of the amount.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free