Back
1997 Supreme(Raj) 1393
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
Shanker Lal - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & anr. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.324 of 1981.
Decided On : 24-09-1997
An employer cannot reduce the pay of an employee by promoting/transferring them to a lower-grade post without following due process and legal provisions.
Headnote:
PAY REDUCTION - PROMOTION/TRANSFER - RAILWAY EMPLOYEE - POWER OF EMPLOYER - LEGAL PRINCIPLES: 1. Employer cannot reduce the pay of an employee by promoting/transferring them to a lower-grade post without following due process and legal provisions. 2. Employer cannot fix the pay of a junior employee above the pay of a senior employee without following established rules and regulations. 3. Substantive pay is a legal right and cannot be taken away without following the procedure prescribed by law.
Fact of the Case:
A railway employee, the plaintiff, was promoted from Trains Clerk to Guard. However, his basic salary was reduced from Rs. 160 to Rs. 138 per month. The plaintiff filed a suit challenging the reduction in his salary.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the employer had no power to reduce the plaintiff's pay without following the procedure prescribed under Article 300-A of the Constitution. The court also held that the employer had no power to fix the pay of a junior employee above the pay of the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the employer had the power to reduce the plaintiff's pay by promoting/transferring him to a lower-grade post? 2. Whether the employer had the power to fix the pay of a junior employee above the pay of the plaintiff?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following legal principles: 1. Once a person has been appointed to a post which carries a particular pay scale, he acquires a legal right to get salary in that pay scale. 2. Salary and arrears of pay would constitute property whereof one can be deprived only in accordance with procedure established by law under Article 300-A of the Constitution. 3. If the pay scale is fixed and the employee is confirmed, reduction of scale without hearing him is illegal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiff's appeal and set aside the judgment of the appellate court. The court upheld the judgment of the trial court, which had decreed the plaintiff's suit and directed the employer to pay the plaintiff his full salary.
1. Whether the defendant-respondents have power to reduce the pay of the petitioner-appellant by promotion/transfer to other post and grade from his previous post and grade under the law?
2. Whether the defendants-respondents have power under the law to fix the pay of junior above the pay of the petitioner-appellant?
3. Whether the appellate court has misconceived the facts and statutory interpretation/construction and gave its decision against the well established principles of law ?
(i) The plaintiff-appellant (for short the plaintiff) instituted a suit in the trial court stating therein that the plaintiff was a Guard in Western Railway. He was initially recruited as Trains Clerk on 7.10.1955 originally in the scale of Rs. 56-130 which was revised to Rs. 110-180. The plaintiff officiated for a period the details of which was given in the plaint. Thereafter the plaintiff was promoted as Incharge Trains Clerk/ Dy. Yard Master in the scale of 150-240 from December 6, 1960 and continued as such till 24th March, 1963. During the aforesaid period the plaintiff drew yearly grade increments in the scale of Rs. 150-240. The recruitment to the post of Guard in the scale of Rs. 130-225 was also made from amongst the candidates serving in the department. They were also taken from various categories including Trains Clerk in the scale of 110-130. The plaintiff was thereafter sent for Guards training in 1962 and he was promoted as Guard by the order dated Jan. 25, 1963 and he was working in the scale of 150-240 and getting Rs. 160 as basic pay. On promotion as Guard, the basic salary of the plaintiff was fixed as Rs. 138/- per month. Therefore the plaintiff averred in the plaint that it amounted to reduction in salary and the said order was discriminatory vis-a-vis Mr. Malik, who was junior to the plaintiff.
(ii) The defendant respondents (in short the defendant) contested the suit inter alia pleaded that the plaintiff did not officiate as Incharge Trains Clerk continuously for three years therefore he was not entitled to protection of his pay. Other legal objections were also raised by the defendant. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff was wrongly fixed at 138/- per month at the time of promotion to the post of Guards Grade C and this amounts to reduce the pay from 160/- to 138/-.
2. Whether the present suit is within limitation ?
3. Whether the present suit of plaintiff for only declaration is not maintainable without consequential relief.
4. Relief.
(iii) The learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated October 10, 1979 decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff was getting Rs. 160 per month on March 25, 1963 as basic pay which was to be protected and the plaintiff was also entitled to consequential relief.
(iv) The defendant preferred civil regular first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure , against the judgment and decree dated October 10, 1979 passed by the learned trial court. The learned appellate court vide judgment and decree dated September 30, 1981 accepted the appeal and reversed the finding of the learned trial court. The judgment and decree of the learned appellate court has been assailed in this second appeal by the plaintiff.
