1. State cadre officer performing duties of an ex-cadre post meant for a higher-grade officer without being empanelled for promotion. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 492
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G T Nanavati, K Ramaswamy
STATE OF H. P., APPELLANT
VERSUS
VIJAY PAL SINGH, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 2225 of 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10924 of 1992), decided on March 14, 1997.
The entitlement to payment of salary for performing the duties of an ex-cadre post is determined by the Fundamental Rules, irrespective of the application of equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Equal Pay - State Cadre Officer - Payment of Salary for Performing Ex-Cadre Duties
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a State cadre officer, performed the duties of an ex-cadre post meant for PS Officer but was not empanelled for promotion as an IPS Officer. The Tribunal granted payment of the scale of pay attached to the post on the ground of equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent, by performing the duties of the post, was entitled to payment of the scale of pay attached to the post under the Fundamental Rules, despite the Tribunal's error in granting payment on the ground of equal pay for equal work.
Issues: Entitlement to payment of salary for performing ex-cadre duties, interpretation of Fundamental Rules, and the application of Article 39(d) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the Fundamental Rules, which entitled an officer who performs the duties of the post to payment of the scale of pay attached to the post, irrespective of the Tribunal's error in granting payment on the ground of equal pay for equal work.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was held eligible for the payment of the scale of pay attached to the ex-cadre post for performing its duties.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
service law
-
pay and allowances
- salary scale for ex-cadre posts (Para 2)
-
pay and allowances
-
service law
Table of Contents
2. Entitlement to the scale of pay attached to an ex-cadre post performed by a non-empanelled officer. (Para 2 )
3. Officer is eligible for the pay scale under Fundamental Rules, though the Tribunal's reliance on equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) was incorrect. (Para 2 )
4. An officer performing the duties of a post is entitled to the salary of the scale of pay attached to that post under Fundamental Rules. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 2 )
6. Does an officer performing duties of a post without being empanelled for promotion qualify for the associated pay scale?
Yes, according to the Fundamental Rules, an officer who performs the duties of a post is entitled to the payment of the salary of the scale of pay attached to that post. (Para 2 )
7. Is the principle of equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) the correct basis for granting pay for duties performed in a higher post?
No, the court observed that granting payment on the ground of equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) of the Constitution was not the correct legal basis in this context. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Though the respondent has been served he is not appearing either in person or through counsel. The admitted position is that the respondent is a State cadre officer discharging the duties of an ex-cadre post meant for PS Officer. Admittedly, he has not been empanelled for the promotion as an IPS Officer but since the post was existing due to exigency of service he has been posted and he performed the duties of the post. Under the Fundamental Rules an officer who performs the duties of the post, is entitled to payment of the salary of the scale of pay attached to the post. Since the respondent, admittedly, performed the duties of the post he is eligible to the payment of the scale of pay attached to the post. No doubt, the Tribunal was not right in granting that payment on the ground of equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) of the Constitution. But in view of the above rules which stand attracted to the fact-situation the result is not vitiated by any error of law warranting. interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
