Ten years of unblemished service entitles an employee to selection grade despite retirement before its effective date.

The appellant was appointed as a Routine Grade Clerk in the office of the U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad.

Criminal proceedings alleging manipulation and forgery of mark sheets under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC ended in acquittal, which attained finality.

The appellant remained absent from duty from 27 December 1977 to 28 July 1981, and the absence was subsequently regularised as extraordinary leave without pay, while being countable for pensionary purposes.

By order dated 4 December 2004, the Board recorded that the appellant’s conduct during the period 1977 to 1994–95 was unsatisfactory, issued him a serious warning, and declined to grant selection grade and promotional pay scale; the order was not challenged and consequently attained finality.

In subsequent proceedings, the High Court directed reconsideration of the appellant’s claim, but the authority again rejected it on the basis of the adverse service record.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 8 February 2012, holding that the adverse service record disentitled the appellant to selection grade and promotional pay scale.

In the intra-court appeal, the appellant alternatively sought a moulded relief based on ten years of satisfactory service rendered from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 2005.

1. Whether the appellant could claim selection grade or promotional pay scale notwithstanding the unchallenged order dated 4 December 2004 recording unsatisfactory conduct for the period 1977 to 1994–95?

2. Whether the appellant was entitled to selection grade or the requisite financial upgradation on the basis of ten years of satisfactory service rendered from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 2005, despite retiring on 30 June 2005?

3. Whether the Division Bench could mould the relief in an intra-court appeal where the original relief had been claimed from earlier dates?

The Court applied the Government Orders dated 9 May 1984, 8 March 1995 and 2 December 2000, under which selection grade and personal promotional/next pay scale depended upon the completion of the prescribed period of regular and satisfactory service, including ten years of satisfactory service for selection grade and the applicable additional period for subsequent financial advancement.

It also relied on the principle that an unchallenged administrative order attains finality and cannot ordinarily be bypassed in subsequent proceedings.

Relying on Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple, (1996) 3 SCC 52, the Court held that an intra-court appellate Bench exercises the same jurisdiction as the Single Judge and may mould the relief appropriately.

It further relied on The Director (Admn. & HR), KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani, (2023) 14 SCC 411, for the principle that a benefit earned upon completion of the requisite period of satisfactory service cannot be denied merely because it becomes payable on the day immediately following retirement.

The Court also noticed the later Government Order dated 5 November 2014, embodying the principle that any period excluded for want of satisfactory service affects the timing of subsequent financial upgradations.

The Court held that the appellant was precluded from challenging or circumventing the adverse findings contained in the order dated 4 December 2004 because that order had remained unchallenged and therefore attained finality.

However, the adverse assessment expressly related only to the period from 1977 to 1994–95. Consequently, the appellant’s service from 1 July 1995 until his superannuation on 30 June 2005 constituted ten years of unblemished service.

Applying the applicable Government Orders, the Court found that this later period had to be considered independently for determining eligibility for selection grade or financial upgradation.

The fact that the benefit would fall due on 1 July 2005, one day after retirement, could not defeat an entitlement earned through satisfactory service, applying the reasoning in C.P. Mundinamani.

Since the Division Bench possessed coextensive jurisdiction with the Writ Court, it was competent to mould the relief and grant consideration of the appellant’s claim from the legally permissible date rather than uphold an absolute rejection of all benefits.

The order of the learned Single Judge dated 8 February 2012 was set aside.

The Court granted moulded relief by directing the State respondents to consider and accord the appellant selection grade or the requisite financial upgradation by treating the period from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 2005 as ten years of satisfactory service, strictly in accordance with the applicable Government Orders.

The necessary exercise was directed to be completed and appropriate orders passed within four weeks of production of the certified copy of the judgment.

The writ petition and intra-court appeal were accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.