Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(ADMINISTRATION), BANGAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/01/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 275 JT 1996 (1) 709
1996 SCALE (1)696
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.