Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(SC) 1305

2008(8) Supreme 606
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Kunnashada Muthukoya — Appellant
versus
Administrator U.T. of Lakshdweep & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3537 of 2001
Decided on : 29-08-2008

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Mathai M. Paikeday, Sr. Adv., Shishir Pinaki, Anuj Prakash and Sanjay Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ashok Bhan, Smt. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani and D.S. Mahra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Classification of posts has nothing to do with fixation of payscales and classification and prescribing payscales for different posts are two different and distinct functions.

Headnote:Service Law – Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 – Rule 5 – Promotion of appellant as a lineman, a group ‘C’ post, in Lakshadweep Electricity Department – Pay Scale of lineman revised as per revised pay rules – Representation by appellant requesting a higher pay scale contending that as post of lineman was classified as a group C post, he ought to be given benefit of minimum of pay scales prescribed for group ‘C’ posts under Revised Pay rules – Rejected – Application thereagainst – Allowed by Tribunal – Writ Petition – Allowed by High Court holding that as pay scale applicable to appellant before pay revision was Rs. 210-290, he was entitled only to corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1150 under revised pay rules and that he was not entitled to a higher pay scale – Appeal thereagainst – Held Rule 5 did not mean that if a government was in a post classified as a Gr\oup ‘C’ post with an existing payscale shown in first schedule as a group ‘D’ payscale, government servant would get payscale applicable to a group ‘C’ post – All that Rule 5 provided was that except those who exercised option to continue to draw pay in existing payscale, other should draw their pay only in revised payscale corresponding to his existing payscale and that he could not draw any other payscale – Contention of appellant that pay revision should be with reference to post held and not existing payscale, if accepted would have led to confusion, uncertainty and inconsistency and was hence held unsustainable – Appeal having no merit, dismissed. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)
       Facts of the Case :
       1. Issue in consideration was regarding entitlement of appellant who was promoted as a lineman, a group ‘C’ post to higher pay scale.
       Findings of the Court :
        The contention of appellant that pay revision should be with reference to post held and not existing payscales, if accepted would have lead to confusion, uncertainty and inconsistency and was hence held unsustainable. Rule 5 did not mean that if a government servant was in a post classified as a group ‘C’ post with an existing payscale shown in first schedule as a Group ‘D’ pay scale, the government servant would get payscale applicable to a group ‘C’ post. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

R.V. Raveendran, J. —

The appellant was promoted as a lineman, a group ‘C’ post, in the Lakshadweep Electricity department, on 2.2.1985. The pay scale of lineman was initially Rs.85-2-95-3-110 which was revised to Rs.210-4-226-EB-4-250-EB-5-290. The pay scale was further revised to Rs.800-15-1010-EB-20-1150 as per Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 (for short ‘Revised Pay Rules’). The appellant gave a representation dated 1.10.1994 requesting a higher pay scale. He contended that as the post of lineman was classified as a group C post, he should be given the benefit of the minimum of the pay scales prescribed for group ‘C’ posts under the Revised Pay Rules, that is Rs.825-15-900-EB-20-1200.

2. By Office Memorandum dated 9.8.1995 the respondent rejected the representation of appellant for grant of the higher pay scale of Rs.825-1200. The said memorandum stated that though the post of lineman was a group ‘C’ post, the revised pay scale applicable to the said post was that which corresponded to pre-revision pay-scale of Rs.210-290 drawn by linemen and therefore appellant was entitled only to the revised pay scale of Rs.800-1150. It was also stated that the duties and responsibilities of linemen in the Electricity Department differed substantially from linemen in other departments (that is Linemen/Wireman in telecommunications, Postmen/Mailguards in Postal department etc.); that the Fourth Pay Commission had recommended the higher pay scale of Rs.825-15-900-EB-20-1200 only for linemen and wiremen in the Telecommunication Department on the specific condition that their recruitment qualifications should be raised; and that the revised pay scale of Rs.800-1150 given to the appellant was therefore in accordance with the fourth pay commission’s recommendations.

3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Tribunal allowed the application by order dated 28.6.1997 and quashed the O.M. dated 9.8.1995. The Tribunal held that as the appellant was in a group ‘C’ post, he was entitled to the minimum pay scale applicable to group ‘C’ posts, after the revision of pay scales; that under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986, the pay scale of Rs.800-1150 was a group ‘D’ pay scale and the lowest pay scale applicable to group ‘C’ posts was Rs.825-1200; and that therefore the appellant was entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.825-1200 from 1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits. The respondents challenged the said order in a writ petition (O.P.No.13965/1998) before the High Court of Kerala. The High Court allowed the writ petition by order dated 27.1.2000 following the decision of this Court in Union of India v. P V Hariharan,1 [1997 (3) SCC 568]. The High Court held that as the pay scale applicable to the appellant before the pay revision was Rs.210-290, he was entitled only to the corresponding revised pay scale of Rs.800-1150 under the Revised Pay Rules, and that he was not entitled to a higher pay scale. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave. The only question that therefore arises for our consideration is whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of higher pay scale of Rs.825-1200 as he was holding a Group ‘C’ post.

4. In Hariharan (supra), this Court considered a similar claim by Tool Room Assistants in the Fisheries department, whose pay scale was initially Rs.85-128, revised to Rs.210-290. After the Fourth Pay Commission recommendations, they were given the revised pay scale of Rs.800-1150. The Tribunal held that as the post held by them was included in Group ‘C’, they were entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs.1150-2900. Reversing the said decision, this Court held:

“We are unable to appreciate the reasoning or approach of the Tribunal. The pay scale of Tool Room Assistant in IFP is Rs.800-1150. .... Assuming that the said post was mentioned under Group C, it may be - or may not be - an error. What is material is that the class

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 1305

2008(8) Supreme 606SUPREME COURT OF INDIAR.V. Raveendran and P. Sathasivam, JJ.Kunnashada Muthukoya — AppellantversusAdministrator U.T. of Lakshdweep & Anr. — RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 3537 of 2001Decided on : 29-08-2008

IMPORTANT POINT Classification of posts has nothing to do with fixation of payscales and classification and prescribing payscales for different posts are two different and distinct functions.

Cases Referred (3)

2008(8) Supreme 606
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Kunnashada Muthukoya — Appellant
versus
Administrator U.T. of Lakshdweep & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3537 of 2001
Decided on : 29-08-2008

IMPORTANT POINT
Classification of posts has nothing to do with fixation of payscales and classification and prescribing payscales for different posts are two different and distinct functions.