SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 452

2010 (4) Supreme 77
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju, A. K. Patnaik, JJ.
Government of India & Ors. — Appellants
versus
B. Anil Kumar & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8273 of 2004
Decided on : 11-5-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
The CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 1986 and F.Rs. 22 and 25 have to be read consistent with the equality clauses in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(a) Service Law – Pay Scales – Rule 7(1)(B), Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 – Pay Commission not apprised of the pending Arbitral proceedings – Arbitral Tribunal, on the other hand, taking into consideration the recommendations of Pay Commission and yet awarding special pay – Respondents being covered by Rule 7(1)(B), no infirmity in impugned judgment. (Para 11)

       (b) Fundamental Rules – Rule 25 – Special pay – Special pay can be attached to either ‘a post’ or ‘a Government servant’. (Para13)

       (c) Service Law – Pay Scale – F.R. 22(a)(1) – Special pay being for the post of Assistant Superintendent in the existing scale of pay of Rs.470-750 irrespective of who held the post, the respondents, who have been promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent after 01.01.1986, would be entitled to the same. (Para 14)

       (d) Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986, F.R. 22 and 25 r/w Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of India – The 1986 Rules and F.Rs. 22 and 25 have to be read consistent with the equality clauses in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Therefore all Assistant Superintendents who are performing the same nature of duties and responsibilities would be entitled to the special pay. (Para 15)

       (1987) 1 SCC 592; (1987) 1 SCC 582 – Relied upon

       (e) Judicial Review – Once a Court holds a party to be entitled to the relief, it can grant the same – There is no need to direct the authorities to consider the same. (Para 18)

       Facts of the case:

       This case relates to alleged discrimination in pay scales of Investigators and Asstt. Superintendents in the National Sample Survey Organisation, Government of India, Ministry of Planning and Implementation, Department of Statistics.

       Finding of the Court:

       Respondents are entitled to the special pay.

JUDGMENT

A. K. Patnaik, J. —

This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2003 of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.7596 of 2003 (for short ‘the impugned judgment’).

2.The relevant facts very briefly are that the respondents herein were working in the post of Investigators in the National Sample Survey Organisation, Government of India, Ministry of Planning and Implementation, Department of Statistics at Hyderabad, in the pay-scale of Rs.425-700 prior to 01.01.1986. The next higher post is the post of Assistant Superintendent. In the year 1978, there was a demand by the Assistant Superintendents working in the operation units under the Director, National Sample Survey Organisation, that the existing pay-scale of Rs.470-750 of the post of Assistant Superintendents be raised to Rs.550-900 with effect from 01.01.1978. The demand was referred to the Board of Arbitration for adjudication on 12.02.1985. When the reference was pending before the Board of Arbitration, the Central Fourth Pay Commission made recommendations that the pay-scale of Assistant Superintendents be revised to Rs.1600-2660 with effect from 01.01.1986. Thereafter, on 05.01.1989 the Board of Arbitration made the Award with effect from 01.05.1982 to the effect that the Assistant Superintendents be given pay at the existing scale of Rs.470-750 plus a special pay of Rs.75/- per month and this special pay be counted as pay for all purposes as per the rules. On 04.07.1989, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, issued an order that the Ministry has agreed to the proposal of the Department of Statistics to implement the Award of the Board of Arbitration and allow special pay of Rs.75/- with effect from 01.05.1982 to the Assistant Superintendents in the Operation Units of the National Sample Survey Organisation, but the special pay will continue upto 31.12.1985 and will not be available in the higher revised scale of Rs.1600-2660 with effect from 01.01.1986. The respondents who were promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendents after 01.01.1986 were not given the benefit of the special pay and were only given the pay in the revised scale of Rs.1600-2660 as recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission.

3.Aggrieved, the respondents moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 827 of 2002 and by order dated 22.01.2003 the Tribunal allowed the O.A. declaring that the respondents are entitled to the re-fixation of their pay by merging the special pay of Rs.75/- with their basic pay in the then existing pay-scale of Rs.470-750 on the basis of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1986 and for subsequent corresponding revised pay scales on the basis of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission and directed the appellants to take steps to get the pay of the respondents re-fixed accordingly and further directed that the respondents shall be paid all the arrears of salary as a result of re-fixation of their pay.

4.The appellants challenged the order dated 22.01.2003 of the Tribunal before the High Court and by the impugned judgment, the Division Bench while sustaining the order of the Tribunal modified the same directing that the respondents would be entitled to have the benefit of special pay of Rs.75 in the revised pay-scale of Rs.1600- 2660 as recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission and the revised pay-scale of the respondents as recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission will have to be appropriately fixed taking into consideration the special pay of Rs.75/- and its merger in the Fifth Pay Commission scales.

5.Miss Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal and the High Court failed to appreciate that the Fourth Pay Commission, while recommending revision of the pay-scale of Assistant Superintendents from Rs.470-750 to Rs.1600-2660 with effect from 01.01.1986
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top