PSP Must Be Part of Basic Pay for Calculating Revised Pay, Denial is Discriminatory Under Article 14: Gauhati High Court - 2025-06-28

Gauhati HC Rules Principal Seat Pay Must Be Included in Basic Pay for Revised Pay Calculation, Cites Discrimination

GUWAHATI: In a significant ruling on service law, the Gauhati High Court has held that the Principal Seat Pay (PSP) granted to its employees must be included as part of the pre-revised basic pay for calculating their revised pay scale. Justice Devashis Baruah , presiding over the single-judge bench, ruled that denying this benefit to a section of employees while granting it to others is discriminatory and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The court directed the Assam government to re-fix the petitioners' salaries by aggregating their Pay in the Pay Band, Grade Pay, and the PSP, and to clear any resulting arrears within three months.

---

Background of the Case

The writ petition was filed by three Senior Personal Assistants of the Gauhati High Court—Smita Choudhury, Nabanita Dasgupta, and Munna Kumar —who were appointed in November 2016. Their grievance arose from the implementation of the Assam Services (Revision of pay) Rules, 2017 (ROP Rules 2017), which came into effect retrospectively from April 1, 2016.

The petitioners contended that the respondent authorities, including the Assam Finance Department and the High Court Registry, had failed to correctly fix their revised pay. They argued that the PSP, an additional emolument of ₹1,000 granted to them via a 2016 notification, was not being added to their basic pay before applying the revised pay fitment tables, resulting in a lower salary. They also raised the issue that they were not given the opportunity to exercise their option under the new pay rules within the stipulated time, a delay which the authorities had not condoned.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Stance: - Mr. T Chakraborty, counsel for the petitioners, argued that the 2016 notification explicitly defined 'Basic Pay' as the sum of "Pay in the Pay Band + Grade Pay + PSP." - He pointed out that this very issue had been settled in favour of other similarly situated High Court employees, such as Computer Assistants, in the case of Subhash Chandra Das and 22 others Vs. State of Assam . In that case, the Finance Department had agreed to rectify the "computational error" of excluding PSP. - The petitioners asserted that denying them the same benefit amounted to treating equals unequally, which is a clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Respondents' Stance: - Mr. P Nayak, Standing Counsel for the Finance Department, conceded that the department had agreed to condone the delay in exercising the pay-option. - However, he contended that the inclusion of PSP in the basic pay was only for the limited purpose of calculating dearness allowance, house rent allowance, and pension, not for fixing the revised pay scale itself. - He attempted to distinguish the current case from the Subhash Chandra Das precedent by stating that his instructions from the Finance Department were different in this matter.

Court's Rationale and Legal Precedents

Justice Baruah systematically dismantled the Finance Department's argument, relying on previous court orders and the plain language of the government's own notification.

The court referenced the original order in WP(C) No.1724/2015, which led to the creation of PSP, and the subsequent notification dated August 16, 2016. The judgment highlighted Clause 2 of the notification:

“2. Principal Seat Pay shall be admissible to the officers and staff of the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High court in addition to their respective pay in the pay band and grade pay, for determining the basic pay (i.e., Basic Pay = Pay in the Pay Band + Grade Pay + PSP)”

The court noted that this definition was unambiguous. It further cited another judgment in Hasnine Alam Vs. State of Assam , which had already established that for pay revision, the existing basic pay must include the PSP component before applying the new fitment tables.

Finding the Finance Department's position "misconceived" and contrary to its own stand in the Subhash Chandra Das case, the court observed:

"The case of the petitioners herein is similarly situated to the case of the Computer Assistants. There is no intelligible differentia why the petitioners should be treated differently from the Computer Assistants as well as all other employees of the Gauhati High Court... The denial of the benefit of the PSP while computing and fixing the revised pay in the case of the petitioners herein is discriminatory and, therefore, violates the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution."

Final Verdict and Directions

The High Court allowed the writ petition and issued clear directives to the respondent authorities:

Re-fix Pay: The petitioners' initial basic pay must be calculated as the aggregate of Pay in the Pay Band, Grade Pay, and PSP.

Apply Increment: The annual increment must be added to this aggregated pre-revised pay before applying the appropriate revised pay scale from the fitment tables.

Timeline for Compliance: The entire re-fixation exercise must be completed within two months.

Payment of Arrears: Any arrears found due after the re-computation must be paid to the petitioners within the subsequent three months.

This judgment reaffirms the principle that administrative actions must be consistent and non-discriminatory, and that pay components explicitly defined as part of 'basic pay' must be treated as such for all consequential benefits, including pay revision.