State
of Punjab & Ors Vs. Bhupinder Singh &
Ors [2004] Insc 218 (2
April 2004)
Cji.,
V.N. Khare, S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia. 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.
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.1500-2540. 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.
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.
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).
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 restructuring and
consequently, higher revised scales came to be granted prospectively.
Accordingly, scales of pay of semi skilled and skilled staff of the Transport
Department, Printing and Stationary Department herein were enhanced w.e.f.
14.2.1989, which circumstance did not exist in the case of Bhagirath Ram
(supra).
This
factual aspect has been lost sight of by the High Court in the present case. In
the case of Ram Murti (supra) the petitioners who were employees of Punjab
Roadways prayed for directions to grant them revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986
instead of 3.11.1989. It was held that on 3.11.1988 the scales stood revised,
and consequently, the appellants were entitled to revised pay scales w.e.f.
1.1.1986, notionally, and they were not to be paid the arrears of the
difference of pay scales but they would be entitled to all consequential
benefits. In our view, learned advocate for the appellant is right in his
submission that the facts of the present case are covered by the judgment of the
High Court in the case of Ram Murti (supra), special leave petition against
which has been dismissed. Accordingly, we hold that the respondents herein
would be entitled to revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986, notionally for
calculation of retiral benefits but they will not be paid arrears of the
difference in the pay scales from that date, as claimed.
For
above reasons, this civil appeal stands allowed, with no order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
