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

2004 Supreme(SC) 417

2004(3) Supreme 32
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
State of Punjab and Ors. -Appellants
versus
Bhupinder Singh and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4432 of 1999
Decided on 2-4-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : H.S. Munjral, R.S. Suri, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K.G. Bhagat, Debasis Misra, Advocates.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Revised pay scales for skilled and semi-skilled employees in Printing and Stationary department recommended by III Punjab Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1986-State Govt. issued notification implementing recommendations w.e.f. 14-2-1989-High Court allowing writ petition of employees directed payment of revised scales w.e.f. 1-1-1986 relying on its earlier judgment in Bhagirath Ram s case-Appeal-In light of recommendations of Pay Commission Administrative Department made proposals on 26-10-1988, certain departments came in for structuring and consequently higher pay scales came to be granted prospectively-Respondents could not be held entitled to salary arrears w.e.f. 1-1-1986 but revised pay scales from 1-1-1986 to be calculated for retiral benefits. (Para 5)

       

JUDGMENT

Kapadia, J.-The short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is - whether the revised pay-scales of skilled and semi-skilled staff working in the Printing and Stationary department were applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986 (when IIIrd Punjab Pay Commission gave its report) or w.e.f. 14.2.1989 when the State Government issued its notification implementing the recommendations of the Pay Commission.

2. The facts lie within narrow compass. Respondents herein joined the service as Assistants before 1978. Subsequently, they were promoted as Supervisors. On 1.1.1986, report was submitted by the IIIrd Punjab Pay Commission which was accepted by the Government enacting Punjab Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules under which the pay of supervisor was fixed in the grade of Rs. 1500-2450. Respondents made a representation pointing that a serious anomaly had arisen on account of failure to prescribe a proper pay scale for the said post. The said matter was referred to Anomaly Committee. Realising its mistake, the government fixed the pay scale of the supervisor in the grade of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 28.3.1989. Aggrieved, respondents herein filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1383 of 1990 in the High Court claiming pay fixation w.e.f. 1.1.1986. By judgment and order dated 21.4.1998, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition in view of the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Bhagirath Ram v. State of Punjab dated 26.7.1994 in Civil Writ Petition No. 6778 of 1993, directing payment w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The appellant herein carried the matter in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. Following the above judgment in the case of Bhagirath Ram (supra), the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, however, directed the appellant herein to pay arrears of salary for 3 years and 2 months prior to the date of filing of writ petition. Hence, this civil appeal.

3. Shri H.S. Munjral, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that keeping in mind the recommendations of the IIIrd Punjab Pay Commission, the Department of Administrative Reforms vide letter dated 26.10.1988 recommended restructuring of the departments and granting of higher revised scales of pay and consequently the scales of pay of skilled and semi-skilled staff of the Department of Transport were enhanced prospectively w.e.f. 3.11.1989. Similarly the scales of pay of skilled and semi-skilled staff of Printing and Stationary Department were enhanced prospectively. It was urged that fixation of the date for grant of revised pay scales is within the discretion of the Government. It was urged that revised pay was payable w.e.f. 1.1.1986, notionally as held by the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Ram Murti & Others v. State of Punjab dated 13.2.1996.

4. Per contra, Shri K.G. Bhagat, learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the respondents had joined the service as Assistants before 1978; that they were subsequently promoted to the post of supervisors; that on 1.1.1986 the State Pay Commission recommended higher pay which the appellant accepted but wrongly fitted them in the grade of Rs. 1500-2540 which created an anomaly as the Assistants were fitted in the grade of Rs. 1800-3200; that the appellant realized its mistake and fitted the supervisors in the higher grade of Rs. 2000-3500. Having accepted the anomaly, it was urged, the respondents were entitled to the grade of Rs. 2000 - 3500 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and not from 14.2.1989. Reliance in this connection was placed on the judgment of the High Court in the case of Bhagirath Ram (supra).

5. We find merits in this civil appeal. Keeping in mind the recommendations of the IIIrd Punjab Pay Commission to rationalize recruitment, qualifications, designation and restructuring of the cadres by amendments to the service regulations, the Administrative Department made proposals on 26.10.1988. In the light of these recommendations, certain departments came in for restruct





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