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

2007 Supreme(Del) 2534

High Court Of Delhi
A. K. SIKRI & VIPIN SANGHI
KAILASH CHAND SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
WP (C) 829 Of 2002
Decided On : 10/31/2007

The exclusion of employees who retired after the implementation of the pay-scales but before the date of the order was found to be arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

Pension - Pay Revision - OM dated 25. 2. 1999 - [A. K. SIKRI, J.] - The judgment discusses the denial of pay revision benefits to employees who retired before the date of the order, and the discriminatory nature of such denial. The court held that the exclusion of employees who retired after the implementation of the pay-scales but before the date of the order was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court directed the respondents to accord the benefit of the revised pay-scale to the petitioner with effect from 1. 1. 1996 and fix his pension accordingly on his retirement on 30. 4. 1996.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a retired Programme Executive, sought the quashing of a clause in an order dated 25. 2. 1999 which confined the benefit of pay revision only to existing employees as of that date and denied the benefits to those retired before that date. The petitioner filed a petition after the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his original application.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the denial of pay revision benefits to employees who retired after the implementation of the pay-scales but before the date of the order was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and directed the respondents to accord the benefit of the revised pay-scale to the petitioner with effect from 1. 1. 1996 and fix his pension accordingly on his retirement on 30. 4. 1996.

Issues: The main issue was whether the denial of pay revision benefits to employees who retired before the date of the order was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the exclusion of employees who retired after the implementation of the pay-scales but before the date of the order was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court directed the respondents to accord the benefit of the revised pay-scale to the petitioner with effect from 1. 1. 1996 and fix his pension accordingly on his retirement on 30. 4. 1996.

Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and directed the respondents to accord the benefit of the revised pay-scale to the petitioner with effect from 1. 1. 1996 and fix his pension accordingly on his retirement on 30. 4. 1996.

A. K. SIKRI, J.

( 1 ) THIS matter was called out for hearing, in its turn, on 4. 10. 2007. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. Still, in order to give a chance, while reserving the orders, we granted one week's time to the respondent to file the written submissions. However, no written submissions are filed. In these circumstances, we are proceeding with the judgment.

( 2 ) THE controversy involved in this petition revolves on a narrow campus. Before we delineate the issue involved and answer the same, we would like to take stock of the factual matrix.

( 3 ) THE petitioner joined his services as Production Assistant with the director General, All India Radio, way back in the year 1962. He was promoted as Programme Executive in February 1992 and retired on the said post with effect from 30. 4. 1996 (on attaining the age of superannuation ). He was drawing his pay in the pay-scale of Rs. 6500-10500 at the time of his retirement. Almost three years after his retirement, the respondents issued orders dated 25. 2. 1999 revising the pay-scale of Programme Executives to Rs. 7500-12000. This revision was retrospective, i. e. with effect from 1. 1. 1996. The pre-revised pay-scale for the post of Programme Executive, i. e. prior to 1. 1. 1996, was Rs. 2000-3500. It was revised to Rs. 6500-10500. The feeder post to the Programme Executive is transmission Executive/production Assistant, which carried the pre-revised scale of Rs. 1400-2600 and it was revised to Rs. 5000-8000 after the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission's recommendations with effect from 1. 1. 1996. Programme Staff Association of the All India Radio (AIR) and Doordarshan (DD)had agitated for parity in pay with Engineering Assistants in AIR/dd at Rs. 550-900 from 1. 1. 1978 and Rs. 2000-3200 with effect from 1. 1. 1986 and consequently to rs. 6500-10500 with effect from 1. 1. 1996. Following the negotiations between the said Association and the Government, OM dated 25. 2. 1999 was issued whereby the pay-scales of Transmission Executives/production Assistants were revised to rs. 550-900 with effect from 1. 1. 1978, Rs. 2000-3200 with effect from 1. 1. 1986 and rs. 6500-10500 with effect from 1. 1. 1996. As a consequence, for the post of programme Executive, which is the promotional post from that of Transmission executive/production Assistant, pay-scale was revised to Rs. 7500-12000. Subsequently, the order dated 25. 2. 1999 was further modified on 14. 3. 2001 allowing the benefit to the upgraded pay-scales to the employees who left the service of AIR and DD by retirement/resignation, etc. during the period 23. 11. 1997 (after the creation of Prasar Bharati) to 25. 2. 1999 on the premise that they had actually served in Prasar Bharati after its creation and due to their leaving of service, an option from then could not have been called.

( 4 ) IN the present case, the petitioner was in service as on 1. 1. 1996 since he had retired on 30. 4. 1996. Therefore, ordinarily he would have been entitled to the benefit of this pay revision and as a consequence thereof, he would have got the salary for the period from January 1996 till April 1996, when he retired, in the revised pay-scale. However, the following clause in the order dated 25. 2. 1999 denied this benefit to persons like the petitioner as it stipulated that the benefit of pay revision would be accorded only to those who were on the rolls on the date of that order, i. e. on 25. 2. 1999 :-

"4. The benefit of the upgraded pay scales will be available to existing incumbents only and those new direct recruits who join after issuance of these orders will not be entitled to these scales, but will be governed by pay scales recommended by the Vth Pay Commission. However, all promotions of existing incumbents shall be made in upgraded scales only. "

( 5 ) INSOFAR as the Programme Executives who were in the service as on 25. 2. 1999 are concerned, they were give



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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