Back
2007(2) Supreme 109
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
M. Raja—Appellant
versus
CEERI Educational Society Pilani & Anr.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4614 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1242 of 2006)
Decided on 31-10-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V. Sivasubramanian and Bikas Kar Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Sonia Mathur, Pankaj Prasad and Ms. Shritika Malik, Advocates.
Held : It may be true that even the respondents expected that the recommendations of the Pay Commission would be implemented from April, 1997, but if for one reason or the other, the same was given effect to from 1.07.1999, a promise cannot be said to have been made out that irrespective of the implementation of the report of the Pay Commission, the appellant would be given the benefit thereof.(Para 14)
It may be that the respondents in its letter dated 21.01.1997 stated “as the Pay Commission Report is likely to be implemented in our school from April, 1997, after its announcement, therefore, your pay will be automatically”, but the same cannot be said to be a clear promise which would attract the principle of promissory estoppel. (Para 15)
The appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission with effect from 1.01.1996. Recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission were made applicable by the respondent in its school only from 1.07.1999.(Para 16)
Rights of the parties are not governed by any statutory provisions. They have to be considered having regard to the terms and conditions contained in the offer of appointment as also the subsequent correspondences of the parties. The letter dated 21.01.1997 speaks of payment of difference between the last drawn salary and salary payable to the appellant on his joining Respondent – School on implementation of the Report of the Pay Commission. The same did not mean that the respondents were bound to implement the same with retrospective effect. (Para 17)
It is one thing to say that the benefit of pay protection was accorded to him on the basis of his last drawn pay but it is another thing to say that he should be given the benefit of revised scale of pay with effect from 1997. They stand on different footings. The matter which was never contemplated by the parties could not have been the subject matter of contract and, thus, could not have been the basis for making a promise.(Para 18)
Respondent - School, as noticed hereinbefore, is ready and willing to extend the benefit of revised scale of pay with effect from the date when it was implemented by it. Respondent – School, thus, has not treated the appellant very unfairly or unreasonably. A parity in payment of scale of pay between a private institution and the employees of the State cannot be directed as the same does not pertain to any legal right of a teacher.(Para 23)
The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment has assigned reasons for interfering with the findings of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. We do not find any legal infirmity therein.(Para 33)
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.
2. Appellant was working as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT for short) (English) in Atomic Energy Central School, Rawatbhata in the State of Rajasthan. An advertisement was issued by Respondent No. 1 – Society for recruitment and appointment to the post of TGT in its school. The appellant applied therefor. An interview was held. Allegedly, he asked for pay protection. It was assured that his pay would be protected.
3. An offer of appointment was made to him on 17.12.1996 wherein it was stated:
“2. You will be paid salary which includes Basic Pay + DA as per CES Rules.
*********
14. You shall abide by the service rules of CEERI Educational Society as decided from time to time.”
4. The respondent, however, by a letter dated 8.01.1997 offered a basic salary of Rs. 1700/- with seven advance increments as also accommodation, etc. to the appellant as he did not join and demanded for settlement of terms and conditions in service to be spelt out clearly. It appears that the wife of the appellant was also offered an appointment. In his letter dated 15.01.1997, the appellant contended:
“I was promised pay protection till the implementation of Pay Commission Report by way of personal pay (by the Interview Committee, of which you were also a member). There is no mention about it in both your letters i.e. dated 17.12.96 and 8.1.97.
I am greatly obliged that you have offered me seven advance increments in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-1600-50-2300-EB-60-2600, but I wish to bring to your kind notice that I would be drawing 1600/- basic pay in the same grade in March, 1997. Henceforth my request to you is that you have to protect my last drawn pay of Atomic Energy Central School (under AEES), as agreed upon by the Committee.”
5. In response thereto, Respondent No.1– Society by a letter dated 21.01.1997 clarified the queries raised by the appellant inter alia in the following terms:
“Your basic salary of Rs. 1600/- in March, 1997 with your present employer has been well protected by offering you Rs. 1700/- basic pay as soon as you join us at CVM. As the pay commission report is likely to be implemented in our school from April, 1997 after its announcement, therefore, your pay will be automatically protected at that time. However, if you are joining us earlier than the implementation of pay commission report the difference in your last drawn salary and the salary at CVM on joining would be given to you as additional personal pay as per rules.”
6. Yet again by a letter dated 25.01.1997, pay protection was assured stating:
“Yes, your pay will be protected in any way either providing personal pay or fixing basic pay at suitably higher level. The appointment letter sent to you is not supposed to carry all these details.
Principal, CVM has already written to you in this regard in detail. If you have further any query please feel free to contact Principal, CVM.”
7. The appellant joined the services in Respondent No. 1 – School on 30.04.1997. It is not in dispute that the Fifth Central Pay Commission revised the scale of pay with effect from 1.01.1996 pursuant whereto the appellant claimed that he was entitled to the scale of pay Rs. 5500-9000 whereas he was put in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. The recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, however, were applied by the respondent with effect from 1.07.1999.
8. Inter alia on the premise that the respondents were bound to protect his scale of pay keeping in view the promises made and the Management Committee backtracked therefrom, he moved the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal allowed the said application in part holding the appellant to be entitled to pay as per the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission with effect from the date of appointment and directing the respondents to calculate the amount of difference and pay the same to him within three months. A writ petition filed by the respondents
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
