2013 Supreme(Megh) 12

MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
Manidhish Bhattacharjee - Appellant
Versus
North Eastern Hill University (Nehu) and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 204(SH) of 2012
Decided On : 03-07-2013

Headnote:

WRIT - SERVICE - FIXATION OF PAY - SENIORITY - ANOMALY - REGULARIZATION - STEPPING UP OF PAY - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - REASONS FOR FORMATION OF OPINION - PUBLIC ORDERS - INTERPRETATION - SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICE - WORK CHARGED EMPLOYEE - PAY FIXATION - FR 22(I)(A)(1) - G.I. ORDERS - CONDITIONS - PARITY IN DUTIES - JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE - ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS - SCOPE - UNJUST AND PREJUDICIAL DECISIONS - WORK CHARGED ESTABLISHMENT - REGULAR ESTABLISHMENT - SERVICE BENEFITS - STATUTORY PROVISIONS - SCHEMES - INTERPRETATION - SENIORITY - PROMOTIONS - INCREMENTS - TIME BOUND PROMOTIONAL SCALES - PROMOTIONAL INCREMENTS - EXTRA PAY - SPECIAL PAY - OVERTIME PAY - STEPPING UP OF PAY - CONDITIONS - CLASSIFICATION - INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA - HIGHER PAY SCALE - JUSTIFICATION - RATIO DECIDENDI - PRECEDENTS - APPLICATION - FACTS OF A CASE - ADDITIONAL FACTS - PRECEDENTIAL VALUE - JUDICIAL UTTERANCES - LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Junior Engineer in the respondent-university, challenged the fixation of his pay lower than that of the respondent No. 3, who was admittedly junior to him. The respondent No. 3 was initially appointed as a Work Charged Junior Engineer and was later brought to the regular establishment. The petitioner contended that the whole period of service of the respondent No. 3 as Work Charged Junior Engineer was taken as regular service and accordingly, he was allowed to enjoy regular annual increment and his pay was re-fixed, resulting in a higher pay than that of the petitioner. The respondent-university, in order to remove the anomaly, constituted a Committee which recommended two options: (a) since the regularization of the service of the respondent No. 3 was irregular, his case might be reviewed and his pay be re-fixed; or (b) stepping up of pay might be granted to the petitioner and another senior engineer at par with their junior, the respondent No. 3. The Executive Council of the respondent-university accepted the recommendation of the Committee and passed a resolution for stepping up of pay of the petitioner and the other senior engineer. However, a subsequent resolution of the Executive Council regretted the same and held that stepping up of pay was not admissible to them.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the impugned resolution quashing the earlier resolution for stepping up of pay of the petitioner was cryptic and did not mention any reason for denying the stepping up of pay. The Court observed that public orders must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself and cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the decision-making authority. The Court further held that the respondent-university had erred in treating the past service of the respondent No. 3 as Work Charged Junior Engineer at par with regular employee for the purposes of fixing his pay scales. The Court also held that the senior is entitled to stepping up of pay with reference to the junior's pay if the senior as well as the junior discharge the same duties under the same responsibility and not in different circumstances.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned resolution quashing the earlier resolution for stepping up of pay of the petitioner was valid and justified. 2. Whether the respondent-university erred in treating the past service of the respondent No. 3 as Work Charged Junior Engineer at par with regular employee for the purposes of fixing his pay scales. 3. Whether the senior is entitled to stepping up of pay with reference to the junior's pay if the senior as well as the junior discharge the same duties under the same responsibility and not in different circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Public orders must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself and cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the decision-making authority. 2. The respondent-university erred in treating the past service of the respondent No. 3 as Work Charged Junior Engineer at par with regular employee for the purposes of fixing his pay scales. 3. The senior is entitled to stepping up of pay with reference to the junior's pay if the senior as well as the junior discharge the same duties under the same responsibility and not in different circumstances.

Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned resolution and directed the respondent-university to remove the anomaly in pay between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 by stepping up the pay of the petitioner at par with that of the respondent No. 3 in the post of Junior Engineer within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and order.