Back
1996 Supreme(SC) 2289
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. Bharucha And K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.
M.L. Mahna - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
C.A. No. .... of 1996 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 26584-85 of 1995)
Decided On : 10-05-1996
An employee's entitlement to stepping-up of pay cannot be denied based on the timing of joining a new posting if the delay in joining was due to the requirement of the employer.
Headnote:
Stepping-Up of Pay - Retention in Previous Posting - Anomaly in Pay Fixation
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and his junior were promoted and posted to new units to fill vacancies. The junior joined the new posting earlier due to the appellant's retention in his previous posting 'in public interest', resulting in an anomaly in pay fixation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's retention in the previous posting was not voluntary and was due to the requirement of the respondents. The court rejected the argument that the retention was in public interest and held that the appellant was entitled to have his pay stepped up to the level of his junior.
Issues: The main issue was the unjustifiable anomaly in pay fixation due to the appellant's retention in his previous posting.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's retention in the previous posting was not voluntary and that it was unjust for the respondents to deny the appellant's right to claim stepping-up of pay based on the timing of joining the new posting.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and order under appeal, and allowed the appellant's application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The appellant's pension and other consequential retiral benefits were to be calculated upon the basis of the stepped-up pay.
JUDGMENT :
1. Delay condoned.
2. Special leave granted.
3. The appeal impugns the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, whereby the appellant's application for stepping-up of his pay to the level drawn by his junior was rejected.
4. The appellant and his immediate junior, one M.M.L. Sharma, were promoted and posted to a new unit to fill existing vacancies. The appellant was posted to Vishakhapatnam and Sharma was posted to Ambala. Sharma was relieved on receipt of the posting order and he joined the new posting on 21.9.82. The appellant could join the new posting only on 21.2.83 because he was retained in his previous posting "in public interest". Consequently, Sharma's pay was fixed at Rs. 1,100/- with effect from 21.9.82 and he earned his next increment on 1.9.83. The appellant's pay was fixed at Rs. 1,100/- only on 21.2.83; consequently, he earned his next increment on 1.2.84. It was the case of the appellant that this was an unjustifiable anomaly and it had happened only because he had been retained in his previous posting in the public interest.
5. We are disinclined to accept the argument on behalf of the respondents, which was accepted by the Tribunal, that the appellant's retention in the earlier posting was in public interest and that this was an incident of service which did not give him a right to claim the stepping-up of pay. It is not as if the appellant voluntarily reported to his new posting on 21.2.83. He could not report to his new posting till that date because of the requirement of the respondents themselves. It does not appear to us just that the respondents should now say that the appellant is not entitled to have his pay stepped up to the level of Sharma who, because no exigency of service came in his way, could report to the new posting earlier.
6. The appeals are allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside and the application of the appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal is allowed. Since the appellant has retired, his pension and other Consequential retiral benefits shall be calculated upon the basis of the stepped-up pay.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
