P.S. Sawhney
Vs. Union of India & Ors [1996] INSC 206
(7 February 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.Hansaria B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1540 JT 1996 (3) 125 1996 SCALE (2)378
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
This
appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunals Chandigarh Bench made in O.A. No.857/CH/89 on December 13. 1991. The
Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellant.
The
appellant argued in person. He contended that in view of the orders passed by
this Court in C.A. No.3685/87 on December 3, 1987, the appellant is entitled to
the revision of pay-scales starting from Rs.2,000/- w.e.f. November 1978 with
annual increment @ Rs.100/- which is not given to him. When this Court passed
the order, the existing scale of pay was Rs.1400/- to Rs.2100/-, which was
subsequently revised to Rs.2200/- to Rs.4000/- and w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to Rs.3700/-
to Rs.5300/- p.m. as noted in the counter-affidavit in paragraph 4 which reads
thus:
"In
accordance with the decision of this Hon'ble Court, the pay of the petitioner
was fixed at Rs.2,000/- + Rs. 100/- special pay by the Chandigarh
Administration in the pay scale of Rs.1400-60-1700-EB-75- 2000-EB-100-2100 +
Rs.100/- Special Pay from November, 1978 vide Chandigarh Administration's
letter No:334(IH)-3-88/1592 dt. 28.1.88, annexed as Annexure R-1. He was
allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar at the stage of Rs.2,000/- vide Chandigarh
Administration's letter No:619-IH(3)-88 1591 dt. 28.1.88 raising his pay from
2000 to 2100/- + 100/- S.P. w.e.f. 1.11.79" Subsequently, the Government
have revised the pay scale of the appellant from Rs.3700/- to Rs.5300/-on par
with others. The grievance of the appellant is that instead of biannual, he is
entitled to the increments annually starting from the pay scale of Rs.1400/- to
Rs.2100/- and proportionate revision thereof from time to time. It is seen that
by proceedings dated January
28, 1988, the
efficiency bar was lifted w.e.f. November 1, 1979. Thereafter his annual increment Rs.100/- was given but he
reached the maximum of Rs.2100/- as on 1.11.80. From 1.11.1981 in the revised
scales, the appellant was given of Rs.100/as special pay. It would appear that
there is a rule in the Punjab pattern that special pay of
Rs.100/- was provided to every employee. Consequently when this Court had given
the direction to pay Rs.100/- as annual increment, it would mean that the
appellant would be entitled to the annual increments until he reaches the
maximum of the pay scales After reaching maximum of the pay-scale, the direction
given by this Court of the payment of the annual increments would not form part
of the pay scales but it must be considered to be special pay, since the
directions given by this Court had became final. Consequently, he is entitled
to the fixation Of the payment of special pay of Rs.100/ every year till the
revision in pay scale is effected and annual increment starts running. If the
pay scale at the appropriate time again is in excess of pay which is directed
to be made to the appellant, as soon as it reaches the maximum, then the pay
would again form part of the special pay and not part of the pay-scales. Thus
the order of this Court is required to be worked out.
If the
contention of the appellant is accepted then it would give rise to dichotomy,
i.e., one scale of pay applicable to the appellant and another one applicable
to the similarly situated persons. If that dichotomy is permitted to be
continued, it would create further complications, for persons similarly
situated would lay claim for parity. Therefore, we clarify that the order
passed by this Court and granting annual increment would mean that so long as
the appellant does not reach the maximum of the appropriate pay scale
prescribed, from time to time, he would be entitled to the annual increment @
Rs.100/- as directed by this Court. Thereafter, it would form as a special pay.
This rule would not be applicable to others. However, when the pay-scale
reaches the maximum after computation of the annual increment of Rs.100/-, till
further revision is effected, it would form a special pay and would nat form
part of the pay-scales. The respondents are directed to work out the formula in
that manner and pay arrears, if not already paid.
It is
then contended that the appellant is entitled to the local allowances on par
with the Punjab pattern. When option was given to
the appellant, he had not given his option. Therefore, he is entitled to the
local allowances on par with the Punjab Government employees. We find no force
in the contention. It is specifically mentioned in directions issued by the
Government that the option given to them to switch over to the pay-scales of
the Central Government from Punjab
pay-scales is irrespective of the local allowances. Local allowances are
admissible as per the Central Government pay-scales. Admittedly, the Central
Government allowances are Rs.20/- while the Punjab Rules provided Rs.100/-.
Consequently, the deduction of Rs.80/- per mensum is clearly consistent with
the directions issued by the Government. There is no illegality in that behalf.
It is
then contended that over and above the revised pay scales, the appellant is
also entitled to the 20% additional pay as recommended by the Central Fourth
Pay Commission. Since it was not accepted by the Government, he is not entitled
to the 20% of the additional pay.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed only to the above extent. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2