Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4432 of 1999
PETITIONER:
State of Punjab and Others
RESPONDENT:
Bhupinder Singh and Others
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/04/2004
BENCH:
CJI., V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA & S.H. KAPADIA.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
KAPADIA, J.
The short question which arises for determination in
this civil appeal is \026 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 \026 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.