Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
V.K. RAMA RAO AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURALDEVELOPMENT THROUGH I
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/12/1989
BENCH:
SAWANT, P.B.
BENCH:
SAWANT, P.B.
MISRA RANGNATH
RAMASWAMY, K.
CITATION:
1989 SCR Supl. (2) 501 1990 SCC Supl. 100
JT 1989 Supl. 394 1989 SCALE (2)1407
ACT:
Civil Services--Pay Scales--Fitment of employees in new
scales-To be done by revising salaries upward--At times
additional benefit treated as personal pay till merged--Such
procedure not discriminatory but eminently just and valid.
HEADNOTE:
In response to the charter of demands concerning the
revision of pay scales, submitted by the officers of the
Respondent Bank, called "NABARD Officers’ Association", the
bank on 9.10.85 revised the pay scales of all its officers
as per settlement with the Association and gave the said
revision retrospective operation w.e.f. 1st February 1984,
following the same date as was done in the Reserve Bank of
India. In order to fix the salaries of the employees, who
were in employment of the Bank of 1-2-1984, the Respondent
Bank prepared a refixation chart which was duly approved by
the NABARD Officers’ Association. The chart was made ap-
plicable to all the officers who were in service of the Bank
on 1.2.1984. The chart was a device to fit the salaries of
the concerned officers in the new revised pay scales. Thus
it contained fitment increments for the employees in service
prior to 1.2.84 to avoid reduction in emoluments and anamo-
lies which would otherwise have resulted. These increments
were to merge in the new scales in the course of time as
they were not designed to grant higher emoluments to the old
employees for all time to come but to avoid anamolies re-
sulting from refixation of salaries into new scales. The
Petitioners challenged the fitment increments granted to old
employees. It was their case that these increments gave
undue benefit to the old employees as against them, and
since they occupied the same posts they were also entitled
to the same fitment increments. They also invoked the theory
the ’Equal pay for Equal work’ by alleging discrimination
between them and the old employees. It may be mentioned that
the Association had 2284 members and except the present
petitioners no body had made a grievance against the refixa-
tion chart.
Dismissing the Petition, this Court,
502
HELD: The revision of pay is always effected with a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
particular date prospectively or retrospectively. Whatever
the date from which it is effected, it necessarily involves
fitment of the salaries of the existing employees in the new
scales. A retrospective operation of the new scales there-
fore involves, for the same purpose, a classification of
employees into two categories viz., those who were in serv-
ice prior to the retrospective date, and those who entered
the service thereafter. If the benefit of the revised pay
scales is to be conferred equitably on the old and the new
employees, the fitment of salaries is in evitable. To avoid
it is to deny the equal benefit of the revised scales to the
employees in service prior to the date from which the new
sales came into effect.[506B-C].
The fitment/adjustment in the new scales further, has to
be done by revising the salaries upward. This sometimes
necessarily involves fitment in a higher stage in the pay
scale than what the employee would be entitled to by a
strict application of the stage to stage adjustment. Some-
times the additional benefit is treated as personal pay till
it gets merged in the next higher increment. This is a known
practice of equitable adjustment of the old pay scales to
the new pay scales. There is not other way of effecting the
just and required adjustment. [506D-E]
The adjustment increments granted to the old employees
on such occasions automatically achieve the dual purpose of
rewarding them for their past service and of adjusting their
salaries in the new scale. The adjustment, fitment incre-
ments are therefore not discriminatory but eminently just
and valid. [512F]
K.N. Ananda & Ors. v. The Karnataka State Financial
Corporation, Bangalore & Anr., [1985] Labour & Industrial
Cases Vol. 18 p. 1079; P. Savita S/o Shri P.L. Savita v.
Union of India, Ministry of Defence (Deptt. of Defence
Production) New Delhi & Ors., [1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 101; D.S.
Nakara & Ors v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 165; State
Government Pensioners Association & Ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, [1986] 3 SCC 501; Kanpur Suraksha Karamchari Union
v. Union of India, [1988] 4 SCC 479; Reserve Bank of India &
Ors. v. C.N. Sahasaranaman & Ors., [1986] 2 SCR 881; Tarsem
Lal Gautam & Anr. v. State Bank of Patiala & Ors., AIR 1989
SC 30; C.R. Seshan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
AIR 1989 SC 1287, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Civil No. 1134 of
1986.
503
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Petitioner-in-person and Mohan Pandey for the Petitioners.
K. Madhava Reddy, P.P. Rao, R.N. Keshwani and H.S.
Parihar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SAWANT, J. The petitioners who are employees of respond-
ent No. 1 National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Develop-
ment (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) request for a
direction to the Bank to give them fitment benefits which
were given to their counter parts who were in the Bank’s
service prior to 1st February 1984.
2. The admitted facts are that on 1st February 1984,
petitioner No. 1 was in the Bank’s service as a ’Grade-B’
Officer land was promoted to ’Grade-C’ Officer’s.cadre on
March 7, 1984. Petitioners 2 to 4 were not in the service of
the Bank on 1st February 1984. Petitioner No. 2 was appoint-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
ed as a ’Grade-C’ Officer and Petitioners 3 and 4 were
appointed as ’Grade-B’ Officers, on various dates in March
1984. Petitioners 5 and 6 were in the Bank’s service in
Clerical Grade prior to 1st February 1984 and were appointed
as Officers ’Grade-A’ after the said date.
3. The first respondent Bank came into existence on July
12, 1982 under an Act of Parliament, viz National Bank for
Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981. The initial
staff of the Bank consisted of the employees of the Reserve
Bank of India and of those recruited by the Reserve Bank of
India exclusively to serve the erstwhile Agriculture Refi-
nance and Development Corporation which was taken over by
the 1st respondent Bank. On February 24, 1986, the Bank
revised pay scales of all its Officers as a result of a
settlement on the charter of demands submitted by the Bank’s
Officers’ Association called NABARD Officers’ Association.
One of the demands of the Association was that the revision
in the scales of their pay should be on the same basis as of
the revision of the Officers in the Reserve Bank of India.
It appears that the NABARD Officers Association had submit-
ted its charter of demands on November 30, 1984 which was on
the same lines as the charter of demands submitted by the
Officers Association of the Reserve Bank of India to the
Reserve Bank of India. On October 9, 1985, the Reserve Bank
of India revised the pay scales of its Officers w.e.f 1st
February 1984. As a result, the 1st respondent Bank
504
also revised the pay scales of its Officers, as stated
earlier, on February 24, 1986, and to bring it on parity
with the pay scales of the Reserve Bank of India, gave
effect to them also from 1st February, 1984. Hence the
importance of the date February 1, 1984. Incidentally it may
be stated that the revision of pay scales of the Officers in
the entire Banking Industry was brought into effect from
that date. The said date is thus not arbitrarily fixed by
the respondent Bank for giving effect to the revision of pay
scales.
4. Since the revision of pay scales was given effect to
from February 1, 1984, it was necessary to fit the pay of
the employees in service prior to February 1, 1984 in the
revised pay scales. Hence it was necessary to evolve some
uniform formula for the fitments. The Reserve Bank of India
had already prepared a refixation chart for the purpose. The
respondent Bank also prepared its refixation chart for the
purpose. This chart was also approved of by the NABARD
Officers Association. The Association at the relevant time
had 2284 members and except the present six petitioners
nobody has made a grievance against the said chart. By the
present Petition what is in effect, challenged is the said
refixation chart.
5. The refixation chart which is an Annexure to the
Petition gives effect to the terms of settlement between the
Bank and its Officers, which as stated above, is a part of
the general settlement in the Banking Industry. The said
chart is made applicable to all the Officers who were in the
service of the Bank holding either probationary, permanent
or temporary appointments and its benefit is given from 1st
February 1984. The chart is no more than a device for fit-
ting the pay of the concerned Officers in the revised pay
scales. Since the revised pay scales were given retrospec-
tive effect from 1st February 1984 it was necessary, as a
first step. to fit the pay in the old scales into the new
scales on and from 1st February 1984. Such a fitment was
necessary only in the case of those who were in service
prior to February 1, 1984. The entrants in service after
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
that date would automatically be treated as being employed
on the new scales from the date of their entry. There was
therefore, no need, as indeed there could not be, of making
fitment adjustments in their case. There is further no
dispute that the employees like the petitioners who were
appointed either for the first time, or promoted to the
higher post, after February 1, 1984, were given all the
benefits of the revised pay scales including the arrears in
salary, treating them as if they were appointed initially in
the new scales.
505
6. The refixation chart under challenge, therefore,
contained a table of fitment of salaries of those employees
who were in service prior to 1st February 1984. It is common
knowledge that such fitment has to be made not by reducing
the existing pay of the employees but fixing it into the
nearest higher stage in the new scale. The table incorporat-
ed in the chart therefore contained fitment increments for
the employees in service prior to 1st February 1984 (herein-
after referred to as the old employees) to avoid reduction
and anomalies which would otherwise result. These increments
were to merge in the new scales in course of time, when the
concerned employees reached the appropriate stage in the new
scale. The increments given were not designed to grant
higher emoluments to the old employees for all time to come.
As has been pointed out by the respondent Bank, there was a
possibility of reduction in salary in some cases and of
anomalies in other cases if a stage to stage adjustment was
made in their salaries. Hence the table was so prepared that
the fitments avoid the said consequences. The said fitment
adjustments in the salaries of the old employees resulted in
temporary increases in their pay packets, although, as
stated earlier these fitment increments were to merge in
future increments in the new scales. The grievance of the
petitioners in this petition is directed precisely against
these fitment increments given to the old employees. It is
their case that these increments give undue benefit to the
old employees as against them, and since they occupy the
same posts they are also entitled to the same fitment bene-
fits. That is the main relief which they have claimed in the
petition by prayer (a). The other reliefs are declaratory in
nature and incidental to it. In support of their claim they
have invoked the theory of Equal Pay for Equal Work and
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by alleging discrimi-
nation between them and the old employees. They have also
pressed certain decisions in support of their case.
7. As will be obvious from what we have stated earlier,
the whole basis of the petitioners’ case is misconceived. It
proceeds on wrong presumptions and unwarranted premises. The
present is not a case of discrimination between employees
belonging to the same class or of granting different scales
of pay to them. The present is a case of adjusting and
fitting the salaries of the old employees belonging to the
same class into the new scales of pay which are made avail-
able to both the new and the old employees. If in effecting
such adjustments, it becomes necessary to give fitment
increments to the old employees, it is to work out the
equities and to do justice to them. Their past service in
fact merits it. To deny them such adjustment is to treat
them unequally by ignoring their past service and placing
them on par with
506
the new entrants. For this purpose, however limited it may
be, the old employees in the present case stand in a differ-
ent class from that of the new. The classification for the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
purpose is not only justified but necessary. The revision of
pay scales is always effected with a particular date pro-
spectively or retrospectively. Whatever the date from which
it is effected, it necessarily involves fitment of the
salaries of the existing employees in the new scales. A
retrospective operation of the new scales therefore in-
volves, for the same purpose, a classification of employees
into two categories, viz. those who were in service prior to
the retrospective date and those who entered the service
thereafter. If the benefit of the revised pay scales is to
be conferred equitably on the old and the new employees, the
fitment of salaries is inevitable. To avoid it is to deny
the equal benefit of the revised scales to the employees in
service prior to the date from which the new scales come
into effect. The service jurisprudence, therefore, makes it
imperative to grant such fitments in the emoluments of the
old employees. The fitment/adjustment in the new scales
further, as stated above, has to be done by revising the
salaries upward. This sometimes necessarily involves fitment
in a higher stage in the pay scale than what the employee
would be entitled to by a strict application of the stage to
stage adjustment. The provision is also, therefore, some-
times made to treat the additional benefit as a personal pay
till it gets merged in the next higher increment. This is a
known practice of equitable adjustment of the old pay scales
to the new pay scales. There is no other way of effecting
the just and required adjustment. Thus, it is not a case of
giving undue benefits to one section of the employees be-
longing to the same class, but is a case of conferring
equitable benefits on the old employees and effecting a just
adjustment between the salaries of the old and new employ-
ees, as necessitated by the new pay scales.
8. As stated above, there is no dispute in the present
case that the petitioners were either appointed to the
higher post or they came in the service of the Bank, for the
first time after February. 1, 1984. Those who were appointed
to the higher post after February 1, 1984 and who were
therefore necessarily in the lower post prior to that date,
get the benefit of fitment into the new scales in theft
earlier lower post according to the very same refixation
chart and received arrears of salary on account of such
refixation. What they claim now is that notwithstanding the
benefit of the refixation they got in theft lower post, they
should also get the said benefit in the higher post, as if
they were promoted to the higher post prior to February 1,
1984. Similarly, those of the petitioners who entered the
Bank’s service for the first time after February 1, 1984,
want the benefit of refixation as if they
507
were in service prior to February 1, 1984. The claim of the
petitioners is thus on the face of it both unreasonable and
unsustainable in law.
9. We may now examine the authorities cited before us.
K.N. Ananda & Ors. v. The Karnataka State Financial Corpora-
tion, Bangalore & Anr., [1985] Labour & Industrial Cases
Vol. 18 P. 1079 was not a case of fitment of the salaries of
the old employees into the revised scales of pay. In that
case, what the respondent Karnataka State Financial Corpora-
tion had, instead done was to prepare a conversion table and
give the old employees salaries in the revised scale accord-
ing to the said table. The pay given to,the old employees
according to the table had apparently no relation to the
stages in the revised pay scale at which the salaries of the
old employees had to be fitted. The Corporation also could
not explain the basis on which the said table was worked
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
out. In fact, as is apparent from paragraph 16 of the judg-
ment, the learned counsel for the Corporation being unable
to furnish the basis of the differentiation in the salaries,
submitted before the court that in fact the Corporation
wanted to protect the total emoluments and to allow the new
employees, who were petitioners in that case, to earn incre-
ments over and above the pay, as enacted in the Corpora-
tion’s resolution of 30th March 1978 which was reproduced in
the judgment. But the State Government did not agree.
It is for this reason that the High Court there held
that the conversion table insofar as it was made applicable
to the old employees only, was discriminatory in nature and
therefore invalid. It will thus be seen that the facts in
that case were different and hence the ratio of the said
decision is not applicable to the present case.
P. Savita S/o. Shri PL Savita v. Union of India, Minis-
try of Defence (Deptt. of Defence Production) New Delhi &
Ors., [1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 101 was again not a case of fit-
ment of the salaries of the old employees into a new pay
scale. In fact, what was done in that case was to prescribe
two separate pay scales for Senior Draftsmen by dividing
them artificially into seniors and juniors, and awarding
Senior Draftsmen new scales while keeping the Junior Drafts-
men on the old scale. The Court, therefore, struck down the
classification.
D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India’s case [1983] 2
SCR 165 was a case of dividing the same class of individu-
als, namely, the pensioners on the basis of an artificial
date, and giving benefit of pension calculated on a new
basis to those employees only who had retired after 31st
March 1979. while denying the benefit of the same
508
computation to those who had retired before that date. The
classification made of the pensioners into two categories on
the basis of their retirement date had no nexus to the
object which was sought to be achieved, namely to mitigate
the hardship of the fixed income group, on account of the
ever rising prices, and of the lowering of the value of the
rupee. In fact, it was pointed out by the Court in that case
that by extending the benefit to those employees who had
retired prior to March 1979 the Court was not making liber-
alisation of the pension retroactive. It was only giving the
benefit of the same basis of computation to all the pension-
ers whether they had retired before or after that date. The
Court also pointed out in that context that retroactiveness
is implicit in the theory of wages. When revised pay scales
are introduced from a certain date, all existing employees
are brought on to the revised scales adopting a theory of
fitments and increments for the past service. The benefit of
the revised scales is not limited to those who enter service
subsequent to the date fixed for introducing the revised
scales but is extended also to those in service prior to
that date. These observations would also make it clear that
it is a general practice recognized even by this Court that
when new pay scales are introduced, the salaries of the old
employees have to be adjusted and fitted into the new scales
by adopting some formula of fitments and increments for past
service. In fact, if such fitment is not made, the old
employees would get no benefit for the service rendered by
them in the past, and they would be placed on par with those
who enter the service after the date of the revision of
scales. That would be a case of unequals being treated
equally. It is, therefore, an absence of fitments and ad-
justments and not their application which results in dis-
crimination.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
In State Government Pensioners’ Association & Ors. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh. [1986] 3 SCC 501, the Government
Order dated 26th March 1980 providing for higher gratuity to
the employees who had retired after 1st April 1978 was
challenged by the Pensioners’ Association on the ground that
the benefit of the said higher gratuity was not made avail-
able to them. The Court held that the provision of payment
of gratuity on stepped-up basis prospectively from a speci-
fied date of retirement, was not unconstitutional.
In Kanpur Suraksha Karamchari Union v. Union of India,
[1988] 4 SCC 479 the Government of India by its Order of
25th July 1981 accorded sanction to treat employees of
canteens established in Defence Industrial Installation
under Section 46 of the Factories Act as the Government
employees with immediate effect. By an amend-
509
ment, the said Govt. Order was given effect to from 22nd
October 1980. The question which was raised in the case was
whether the employees who were recognised as Government
employees w.e.f. 22nd October 1980, were entitled to calcu-
late the service rendered by them prior to 22nd October 1980
for the purpose of their pension, and the Court held that
the period of service rendered by the employees prior to
that date has to be counted for the said benefit. This was
thus in effect giving benefit to the old employees of their
past service.
In Reserve Bank of India & Ors. v. C.N. Sahasaranaman &
Ors., [1986] 2 SCR 88 1, what was challenged was the com-
bined seniority and scheme of promotions for cadres of
Officers and non-Officers in the Reserve Bank of India. In
the past, there was a separate departmentwise and grade-wise
seniority, and the promotions to the cadres of Officers and
non-Officers were effected on the basis of such seniority.
In September 1962, a need was felt for the maintenance of a
combined seniority list at each centre for the purposes of
promotions as recommended by the National Industrial Tribu-
nal presided over by Justice Desai. These recommendations
for centre-wise combined list were approved by this Court in
1966. In 1970, the supervisory staff in Class1 was upgraded
to staff officers in Class-1 pursuant to the settlement
between the employees and the Bank on January 9, 1970 sub-
ject to certain conditions. On 6th June 1970, a circular was
issued for introduction of written examination for depart-
mental promotions of clerks grade-I/Assistants etc. to the
post of Staff Officers Grade II in all the groups. The
circular was not, however, enforced. On May 7, 1972 the Bank
took several steps towards equalising promotional opportuni-
ties of employees by introducing what was known as Optee
Scheme of 1965 and the Optee Scheme of 1966, and finally by
entering into a settlement with the Association of the
employees on May 7, 1972. The Association by that settlement
accepted the principle of maintenance of a combined seniori-
ty list at a centre. On the same date, the Bank formulated a
Scheme for promotions of staff officer Grade I1 after giving
full opportunity to the Association to make its suggestions.
On that occasion, tile Bank and the Association further
agreed by exchange of correspondence that the ratio of
direct recruits to the promotees in the total strength of
officers staff Grade II should be 17.5%: 82.5%. On 13th May,
1972, the Bank introduced administrative circular No. 8
which was binding on all employees of the Bank. On the same
date, the Bank introduced another circular No. 9 on "Scheme
of Combined Seniority List and switch over from clerical to
non-clerical" w.e.f. May 7, 1972 which was also binding on
all employees. The constitutional validity of this Scheme
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
also was upheld by this Court.
510
On May 22, 1974 the Bank took a decision based on the
recommendations of the Cadre Review Committee, and issued
administrative circular No. 15 to prepare a common seniority
list and to provide for another group mobility at the lowest
level of officers in Grade-A w.e.f. January 1, 1970. On
January 7, 1978 the Bank took further decision based on the
recommendations of two Committees, and issued circular No. 8
to combine the seniority of all officers in Grade B and
above, w.e.f. May 22, 1974, with a view to equalise the
opportunity for promotion among officers. Three employees
who were Grade II clerks working at the Nagpur branch of the
Bank ever since their employment, variously between 1962 to
1965, challenged clauses (II)(a)(i) of the Administrative
Circular No. 8 of May 13, 1972 dealing with "the Scheme for
promotion from staff officer Grade 1I" (later designated as
Grade A) before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.
This clause provided for the number of candidates who will
be qualified to appear in the test at the written examina-
tion. The clause stated that an estimate of the vacancies to
occur in each office during the panel year, i.e. 1st Septem-
ber to 31st August, will be declared by the Bank in advance,
and the number of candidates in that office will not exceed
twice the number of such vacancies subject to other clauses
in the Scheme. The grievance of the petitioners was that the
said clause was violative of their rights under Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution since the chance to appear in the
examination depended not on relative merits but merely on
the fortuitous circumstance, namely, the number of vacancies
occurring in the particular centre in a panel year which had
no nexus with the purpose of promotion, namely, to secure a
fresh cadre of staff officers, and therefore, the Scheme was
bad in law. The High Court found force in the submission and
struck down the said clause. In allowing the appeal filed by
the Bank, this Court there held, among others, that:
"In service jurisprudence there
cannot be any service rule which would satisfy
each and every employee and its constitution-
ality has to be judged by considering whether
it is fair, reasonable and does justice to the
majority of the employees and fortunes of some
individuals is not the touch-stone. Further,
whether there has been denial of equality of
the view of promotion or any constitutional
right infringed or not cannot be judged, where
interest of large number of people are con-
cerned, in the abstract."
3.2 "The reference held pursuant to
the orders of this Court dated 2nd May, 1984
undoubtedly indicates that
511
majority of the employees are in favour of
acceptance of the modified settlement. In
matters of service conditions it is difficult
to evolve as ideal set of norms governing
various conditions of services and in grey
area where service rules operated, if more
than one view is possible without sacrificing
either reasons or commonsense the ultimate
choice has necessarily to be conditioned by
several considerations ensuring justice to as
many as possible and injustice to as few.
These principles, however, significant do not
authorise the majority of the employees to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
trample upon the constitutional guarantees or
rights of the individuals or minority employ-
ees. Majority cannot thwart or barter away the
constitutional rights of the minorities. The
constitutional guarantees are to protect this
very danger. But in judging the content of the
constitutional rights, the entire perspective
of the equality of opportunity here and denial
of equal right in public employment have to be
viewed in a fair, reasonable and just perspec-
tive. Viewed in that light, it is true there
may be individual instances exemplifying
injustices by postponing or delaying the
chances of promotions of the contesting re-
spondents yet that does not deny them their
constitutional right in its proper measure,
and the considerations that have weighed with
the making of the modified scheme and in light
of the other considerations it must be ob-
served that with whatever care and objectivity
or foresight any rule is framed, some hard-
ship, inconvenience or injustice might to
result but the paramount consideration is the
reconciliation of the conflicting claims of
two important constituents of service--one
which brings fresh clerical employees and the
other mature experience. There has been a
happy merger of these two considerations in
the scheme proposed and in that merger, no
violation of the guaranteed rights of the
opposing respondents have occurred."
The observations have much bearing on the present case.
As has been pointed out hereinabove, in the present case
also refixation chart of the salaries of the employees was
worked out with the approval of the Association of the Bank
Officers concerned. The employees involved were further
large in number. Any chart evolved to fit the salaries of
the old employees who had entered the service during the
whole span of the period prior to 1st February 1984, was
bound to result in some employees getting slightly more and
others getting
512
slightly less. It is not possible in such circumstances to
satisfy all employees to the same degree. Hence, as contend-
ed by the petitioners, if in some cases. the employees have
received some excessive benefit, the chart cannot be faulted
on that account. The chart as applied is a uniform one and
is designed to adjust the old salaries in the new scale. In
a large organisation with a large number of employees in-
volved in the exercise, a few marginal cases of excessive
benefits cannot be relied upon to invalidate the entire
chart, for no adjustment chart in such cases can be free
from some defects.
In Tarsem Lal Gautam & Anr. v. State Bank of Patiala &
Ors., AIR 1989 SC 30 and in C.R. Seshan & Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 1287 this Court has, in
fact, held that a higher category in the same class of
employees on the basis of seniority-cummerit can be carried
out and a higher pay scale can be given to such higher
category and that it is neither arbitrary nor unconstitu-
tional to do so.
10. The aforesaid review of the authorities shows that
none of them supports the proposition advanced by the peti-
tioners, namely, that the salaries of the old employees
cannot be brought on to the new or revised pay scales by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
giving them fitment increments as is done in the present
case. In fact, in such a case to refuse to fit the salaries
of the old employees in the new scales of pay by denying
them the necessary fitment or adjustment increments, is to
deny them the equality of treatment. That amounts to ignor-
ing their past service and to treating them on par with the
new entrants which would be unjust in itself. The adjustment
increments granted to the old employees on such occasions
automatically achieve the dual purpose of rewarding them for
their past service and of adjusting their salaries in the
new scale. The adjustment fitment and increments are there-
fore not discriminatory but eminently just and valid.
11. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this
petition and dismiss the same. There will, however, be no
order as to costs.
Y. Lal Petition
dismissed.
513