Supreme Court limits promotions under Time Bound Promotion Scheme

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Versus J.R. William Singh

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Versus J.R. William Singh - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the respondent to promotion under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme (TBPS).
2. Applicability of various settlements and agreements regarding promotions.
3. Status and designation of the respondent during his tenure.
4. Payment of arrears and emoluments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of the Respondent to Promotion under TBPS:
The primary issue was whether the respondent, initially appointed as an Electrician, was entitled to promotions under the TBPS. The Supreme Court noted that promotions under TBPS must be in accordance with the scheme and agreements between the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and its Employees’ Association. The initial settlement dated 10.01.1984 specified that promotions were applicable to Class III and Class IV employees, with special categories like Electricians being governed by decisions of the ICAI President. The President's decision on 25.02.1984 limited Electricians to the next grade, not full promotions under TBPS.

2. Applicability of Various Settlements and Agreements:
The respondent argued that subsequent settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991, which reduced the time span for promotions, did not specifically exclude Electricians from TBPS promotions. The Supreme Court found that the subsequent settlements only modified the time gap for promotions but did not alter the exclusion of Electricians from full TBPS promotions as per the 1984 settlement and the President's decision. Thus, the respondent was not entitled to promotions beyond the next grade.

3. Status and Designation of the Respondent During His Tenure:
It was contended that the respondent had served in roles beyond an Electrician, such as in the Diary/Dispatch Section, and was thus entitled to promotions. The Court observed that there was no formal promotion order to the post of Section Officer. The respondent continued to be designated as an Electrician, and temporary assignments did not equate to a promotion. Additionally, the respondent himself identified as an Electrician during his transfer in 2005, reinforcing his status.

4. Payment of Arrears and Emoluments:
The Division Bench of the High Court had directed the appellant to pay arrears and emoluments for the scales of Section Officer and Executive Officer. The Supreme Court overturned this, stating that the respondent was not entitled to such promotions. However, the Court directed that the respondent should be paid the salary equivalent to that of a Section Officer for the period he performed those duties, if not already paid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the Division Bench's judgment that had directed the promotion of the respondent to Section Officer and Executive Officer under TBPS. The Court upheld the original settlement and the President's decision, which limited the respondent's entitlement to the next grade. The appeal was allowed, and it was directed that the respondent be paid the salary of a Section Officer for the period he performed those duties. No costs were awarded.