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.