Punjab And Haryana High Courtchandigarh Vs.
Sunder Sham Kapoor & Ors [1997] INSC 14 (8 January 1997)
S.C.
AGRAWAL, FAIZAN UDDIN
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
S.C.
AGRAWAL, J.
The
short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the
respondents who were employed as Revisors in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
(hereinafter referred to as `the High Court') and were given the pay scale of
Superintendent Grade II with effect from August 5, 1980 are entitled to the
said scale with effect from January 23 1975.
In the
High Court the conditions of service of the employees were earlier governed by
the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules,
1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1952 Rules"). Under the 1952
Rules there were posts of Senior Translator and Junior Translator. Keeping in
view the recommendations of the Pay Commission constituted by the State of Punjab in 1968, when the High Court
Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as "the 1973 Rules") were made by the High Court, the
posts of Senior Translator and Junior Translator were designated as Revisor and
Translator respectively. The 1973 Rules were issued vide Notification dated January 23, 1975 and were published in the Chandigarh
Gazette on February 1,
1975.
Under
Rules 26, 27 read with Schedule I of the 1973 Rules Revisors were placed in the
scale Rs. 225-500 with a special pay of Rs. 50 per month and Translators were
placed in the scale Rs. 225-500. Since Rules 26, 27 and 34 and Schedules I, II
and III of 1973 Rules related to salaries, allowances and pension, etc. of the
employees, the same were sent for approval of the President of India as
required under Clause (2) of Article 229 read with Article 231 of the Constitution
of India. The approval of the President of India was received vide letters
dated September 25,
1985 and October 30, 1985. In the meanwhile, the pay scale of
Rs. 225-500 had been revised to Rs 600-850 with effect from January 1, 1978 and by Notification dated August 5, 1980 Schedule I of the 1973 Rules was
substituted. In the substituted Schedule the posts of Senior Translator and
Junior Translator were mentioned. In the remarks column against the post Senior
Translator the following note was made:- "Note: Redesignated as Revisors
and recommended the pay scale of Superintendent Grade II i.e. Rs. 800-25-850-30-1000/40-1200/50-
1400." Similarly, as against the post of Junior Translator the following
note was made in the remarks column:- "Redesignated as Translators and
recommended the pay scale of Assistants i.e. Rs. 570/- 1080 & also the
selection Grade." After receiving the approval of the President of India,
Notification dated January
23, 1986 was issued by
the High Court wherein it was notified that Rules 26, 27 and Schedules I, I(A)
and 3 shall come into effect with effect from September 25, 1985. Feeling aggrieved by the said Notification dated January
23, 1986, a number of employees working as Revisors and Translators in the High
Court, including the respondents who were working as Revisors, filed a Writ
Petition (C.W.P. No. 2363 of 1986) in the High Court wherein they claimed that
Rules 26, 27 and Schedules I, I(A) and 3 should be brought into effect with
effect from March 1, 1974, the date of enforcement agreed to by the then Chief
Justice while approving the draft rules on the administrative side. The said
Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court by judgment dated August 6, 1987. The High Court held that in letter
dated September 25, 1985 conveying the approval of the President of India to
Rules 26, 27 and Schedules I, I(A) and III of the 1973 Rules, it is stated that
the rules shall come into effect from the date of issue and since the 1973
Rules were issued by Notification dated January 23, 1975, the said Rules came
into effect with effect from January 23, 1975 and all amendments to the Rules
made between January 23, 1975 and September 25, 1985 were to take effect from
the respective dates on which such amendments were issued from time to time.
The High Court, therefore, quashed the Notification dated January 23, 1986 and
directed that January 23, 1975 be treated as the date of enforcement of the
1973 Rules and that the pay and allowance of the petitioners in the said Writ
Petition should be fixed on the basis that the 1973 Rules came into force on
January 23, 1975.
Thereafter
the High Court issued an order dated November 17, 1987 whereby the pay of Revisors
was fixed as under:- Date Scale of Pay i) 23.1.1975 Rs. 225-15-360/20-500 plus Rs.
50 p.m. as special pay ii) 1.1.1976 Rs. 600-20700-25-850/30-
1000-40-1080-40-1120 plus Rs. 50 p.m. as special pay iii) 5.8.1980 Rs.
800-25-350-30-1000-40 1200/50-1400 plus Rs. 50 p.m. as special pay Feeling
aggrieved by the said order dated November 17, 1987, the respondents filed
another Writ Petition (C.W.P. No. 2359 of 1988) in the High Court which was
allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated January
28, 1992. The learned single Judge held that under the 1973 Rules Revisors have
been granted the same scale and special pay as admissible to Deputy
Superintendents (who were subsequently designated as Superintendents Grade II)
and, therefore, the respondents who had filed the Writ Petition in the High
Court are entitled to the same pay scale as Deputy Superintendent
(Superintendent Grade II) with effect from January 23, 1975. Letters Patent
Appeal (L.P.A. No. 615 of 1992) filed by the appellant against the said
judgment of the learned single Judge has been dismissed in limine by a Division
Bench of the High Court by its order dated August 27, 1992. Hence this appeal.
By
order dated November
17, 1987, the
respondents, as Revisors, have been given the pay scale of Rs. 800-1400 which
is also the pay scale of Superintendents Grade II plus Rs. 50 p.m. as special
pay with effect from August
5, 1980.
The
question is whether the respondents are entitled to claim the same pay scale as
that of Deputy Superintendent (Superintendent Grade II) with effect from January 23, 1975.
The
High Court has held that they are so entitled on the view that under the 1973
Rules they have been given the same pay scale as that of Deputy Superintendent
(Superintendent Grade II). This view is, however, not borne out by Schedule I
of the 1973 Rules as originally issued vide Notification dated January 23, 1975. Under Schedule I of the 1973
Rules, as originally notified, the post of Deputy Superintendent mentioned at
serial No. 2 of the posts in the Group of non- Gazetted Ministerial
Establishment was placed in the scale of Rs. 275-15-410/20-550 and in the
revised grade of 350-25- 500/30/650 with effect from June 6, 1972. The post of Revisor was mentioned
at serial no. 8 in the non-Gazetted Ministerial Establishment and the pay scale
fixed for the said post was Rs. 225-15-360/20-500. There was a further
provision for special pay of Rs. 50 p.m. for the post of Revisor. It would thus
be seen that in the 1973 Rules, as originally issued on January 23, 1975, Revisors
had not been placed in the same pay scale of Superintendent Grade II only by
Notification dated August 5, 1980 whereby Schedule I of the 1973 Rules was
substituted and against the post of Senior Translator it was mentioned in the
remarks column :
"Senior
Translators have been redesignated as Revisors in the pay scale of Supdt. Grade
II". This would show that till the Notification dated August 5, 1980 was issued Revisors had not been
given the same pay scale as Superintendent Grade II. Revisors, therefore, can
claim the pay scale of Superintendent Grade II with effect from August 5, 1980 only and they were correctly given
the said scale with effect from that date under order dated November 17, 1987. The High Court was in error in
quashing the said order and in directing that Revisors are entitled to pay
scale of Superintendent Grade II with effect from January 23, 1975.
In
order to hold that Revisors are entitled to the same pay scale as
Superintendent Grade II with effect from January 23, 1975, the learned single
Judge has placed reliance on the earlier judgment of the High Court in Civil
Writ Petition No. 2369 of 1986 wherein it was directed that the 1973 Rules
shall be treated to have come into effect from January 23, 1975. The said
judgment lays down that the 1973 Rules, as issued by Notification dated January 23, 1975, would come into force with effect
from January 23, 1975. It also lays down that all
amendments to the 1973 Rules made between January 23, 1975 and September 25,
1985 were to take effect from the respective dates on which such amendments
were issued from time to time. Since the amendment in the Schedule I to the
1973 Rules was made by Notification dated August 5, 1980, it can only come into force with
effect from the date of issue of the Notification dated August 5, 1980 and not with effect from January 23, 1975 as held by the learned single Judge
in the impugned judgment. The benefit of the pay scale of Superintendent Grade
II under the Notification dated August 5, 1980 cannot be extended to Revisors from a date earlier than the
date of the issue of the said Notification.
For
the reasons aforementioned, we are unable to uphold the judgment of the learned
single Judge as well as order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the order dated August 27, 1992 passed in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 615 of 1992 as well as judgment of the learned single
Judge dated January 28, 1992 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 2359 of 1988
are, therefore, set aside and the Writ Petition filed by the respondents is
dismissed. But in the circumstances there is no order as to costs.
Back