Back
In the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
B.S. RAIKOTE, J.
P.P. Mastanrao and others - Petitioner
Versus
The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Finance and Planning (F.W.T.A.) Dept. Hyderabad and others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 17861 of 1987
Decided on : 28-03-1994
SPECIAL PAY - HEAD CLERKS - JUDICIARY DEPARTMENT - CLASSIFICATION - DISCRIMINATION - ARTICLE 14 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - PAY REVISION COMMISSION REPORT - ACCEPTANCE - IMPLEMENTATION - HEAD CLERKS OF DISTRICT COURTS - ENTITLEMENT TO SPECIAL PAY.
Fact of the Case:
Four petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not extending the special pay of Rs. 100-00 to the petitioners having extended the same to the equivalent posts viz., Mandal Revenue Officers as per G.O. Ms. No. 74 dated 25-3-1987 is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and discriminatory. They also prayed that they should also be awarded the special pay of Rs. 100-00 on par with the Mandal Revenue Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.R. Os.’) with effect from 25-3-1987.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned notification dated 25-3-1987, which accepted the report of the Pay Revision Commission 1986, recommended the awarding of special pay to certain categories of officials based on the nature of their duties. The court also found that the Pay Revision Commission recommended a special pay of Rs. 100-00 to the M.R. Os. on the basis that they were entrusted with heavy responsibilities. However, the court held that it was difficult to decide the nature of the duties of the petitioners and the M.R. Os. in a writ jurisdiction on the basis of affidavits and that the matter was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P.'s case, which held that the equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government and that the Courts should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the special pay of Rs. 100-00 per month on par with the M.R. Os.? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the special pay of Rs. 50-00 per month as recommended by the Pay Revision Commission for Head Clerks of the Judiciary Department?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the special pay of Rs. 100-00 per month on par with the M.R. Os. as the Pay Revision Commission recommended the special pay to the M.R. Os. on the basis of the heavy responsibilities entrusted to them and that it was difficult to assess the nature of the duties of the petitioners and the M.R. Os. in a writ jurisdiction. 2. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to the special pay of Rs. 50-00 per month as recommended by the Pay Revision Commission for Head Clerks of the Judiciary Department as the impugned notification accepted the report of the Pay Revision Commission in its entirety and that the denial of the special pay to the Head Clerks of the District Courts was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed in so far as it related to Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3, who were Head Clerks in the District Courts, and they were entitled to the special pay of Rs. 50-00 per month with effect from the date of the impugned notification. The writ petition pertaining to petitioners 2 and 4, who were Nazir and Sheristadar respectively, was dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Four petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not extending the special pay of Rs. 100-00 to the petitioners having extended the same to the equivalent posts viz., Mandal Revenue Officers as per G.O. Ms. No. 74 dated 25-3-1987 is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and discriminatory. There is a further prayer that they should also be awarded the special pay of Rs. 100-00 on par with the Mandal Revenue Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.R. Os.’) with effect from 25-3-1987.
2. First petitioner is working as Additional Head Clerk, 1 Additional Distict Court, Guntur. Second petitioner is working as Central Nazar in the District Court, Guntur. The third petitioner is working as Head Clerk in the District Court, Guntur and the fourth petitioner is working as Sheristadar, Sub-Court, Guntur. The petitioners have got common grievance and according to the case of the petitioners they are in the pay scale of Rs. 1330-60-1930-70-2630 (pre-revised). Since they belong to one common category on the basis of scale of pay which is equivalent to that of the M.R. Os. it is their case that they should also be given the same benefit that has been conferred on the M.R. Os. on the basis of the notification dated 25-3-1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned notification’).
3. To appreciate the contention of the petitioners it is necessary for me to immediately refer to the impugned notification dated 25-3-1987. The said notification states that the report submitted by the Fay Revision Commission 1986 is accepted for the purpose of granting Special Pays to certain categories of the officials with certain further riders. Para 2 of the said notification reads as under:
“Within a particular pay scale, such of those employees as have either additional responsibilities or a specially difficult nature of job to be performed alone should be paid Special pays and not the entire category as such and that where such a practice is in existence it should be abolished forthwith.
Going by the above norms he has reviewed the existing special pays and recommended special pays to eligible categories including rationlising payment of special pays to the existing categories and extending special pays to new categories. He has recommended for the removal of existing special pays in a few posts. He has also recommended that the rest of the posts receiving special pays now, continue to carry the special pays as at present.
All the above recommendations of the P.R.C. have been accepted by Government. Government therefore hereby order that:—
(a) the criteria laid down by the P.R.G. above in the matter of sanction of special pays should be followed by all the departments and that no proposal for Special pays which do not fulfil these criteria should be recommended to Finance and Planning (FW-TA) Department for consideration or ordinarily be sanctioned.
(b) the Special Pays recommended for revision in respect of certain posts as per Annexure-I to this order, be sanctioned to the holders of the posts indicated therein.
(c) the Special Pays approved now to new categories of posts as indicated in Annexure-II to this order be sanctioned to the incumbent of posts indicated therein, subject to the remarks in Column 4 thereof.
(d) in respect of certain categories where reduction of Special pay is ordered they may be paid Special pay as in Col. 4 of Annexure-III to this order.
(e) the existing Special pays which are ordered for reduction in respect of one category and for increase in respect of another category to make the rates uniform as indicated in Annexure-IV to this order be sanctioned to the incumbents of posts, subject to the remarks in column 5 thereof.
(f) all the Special Pays indicated in Annexure-V to this order be discontinued in respect of the posts indicated therein subject to the remarks in column 4 thereof.
(g) all the other existing Special pays which are not indicated i
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
