The
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Administration), Banga [1996] INSC 106 (22 January 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 275 JT 1996 (1) 709 1996 SCALE (1)696
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Office
report shows that notice was issued to the respondents on 25.8.1993. Though it
was served on respondent No.2 on 14.9.1993 and on respondent No.7 on 7.9.1993,
they do not appear either in person or through counsel. Neither unserved
envelopes nor A/D cards have been received in respect of respondent Nos.1, 3 to
6. Under these circumstances, notice to them must be deemed to have been
served.
Leave
granted.
We
have heard the counsel for the appellant. The Government in O.H.No.F7(52) E
IIIX78, dated May 5,
1979 have stated that
special grant of pay of Rs.35/ per month to the Upper Division Clerks in the
non-secretariat administrative offices was provided. Out of the UDCs carrying
the scale of Rs.330-560/-, 10% of the posts were earmarked with special grant
of pay of Rs.35/- in the secretariat and other places and they were directed to
handle cases of complex nature involving deep study and-competence. For dealing
with such cases certain officers have been promoted to that 10% posts specified
among the UDCs in the secretariat as well as non- secretariat administrative
officers. They were being paid @ Rs.35/- per month as compensation for
discharge of special duties. The respondents were not actually discharging
those duties but being UDCs they claimed special pay of Rs.35/- .The Tribunal
in the impugned order fol1owing its earlier decision dated 9.10.1991 made in
O.A.394/90 allowed the petition and directed payment. We have directed the
counsel to find out whether any appeal has been filed against the said order.
It would appear that no appeal has been filed against the said order. However,
it being a question of law and since the matter is of perennial problem
applicable to several places, we are of the considered view that the failure to
file an appeal in one case does not have the effect of following in all other
cases. It is seen that payment of Rs.35/- per month to UDCs discharging special
duties of onerous nature, is personal pay so long as they discharge the same.
Therefore, other UDCs who do not perform the special duties, though seniors, do
not ipso facto get the same pay on the parity of equal pay due to juniors
getting higher pay. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the
Tribunal was wholly incorrect in directing payment to all the persons who did
not discharge such duties assigned to the 10% special posts of UDCs carrying
special pay of Rs.35/- per month.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
