http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOPALDAS

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/01/1995

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR  809            1995 SCC  (2) 396  JT 1995 (1)   528        1995 SCALE  (1)150

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: KULDIP SINGH, J.: 1.   The pay scales of government servants   in the state of Rajasthan were revised   with effect from September 1,1981by The Rajasthan Civil Servants (Revised 529 Pay Scales) Rules,1983 (the rules).  The pay scale of  upper Division  Clerks (UDCs) of subordinate) offices was  revised under  the Rules from Rs. 385-650 called- scale No (S-9)  to Rs.520-925 (revised s-9).  The existing pay-scale of Rs.440- 775  called  scale  No. 10 (S- 10) in  respect  of  UDCs  of Secretariat  was revised to that of Rs. 6101090 (revised  S- 10).  The UDCs of the subordinate offices represented before the  Government that there was no justification for  denying them the higher pay-scale which was being given to the  UDCs of   Secretariat.    The  state  Government   accepted   the representation  and  by the notification dated  January  23, 1985  granted  revised S-10 to the UDCs of  the  subordinate offices  with  effect  from  February  1,  1995.   Gopaldas, respondent in the appeal herein who was working as UDC in  a subordinate  office,  field  a  writ  petition  before   the Rajasthan  High  Court  seeking a  direction  to  the  State Government  to grant him the revised S-10 with  effect  from September  1,  1981 instead of February 1, 1985.   The  High Court  by the judgement dated December 21, 1988 allowed  the writ  petition  and directed the state Government  to  grant revised  S-10  to the UDCs of the subordinate  offices  with effect from September 1, 1981.  This appeal by the state  of Rajasthan  is  against the judgement of the  Rajasthan  High Court. 2.   The  main contention of the respondent before the  High Court was that after coming into force of the High Court was that  after  coming  into  force  of  the  Rules  the  State Government issued notifications from time to time during the years  1984/ 85 revising pay scales of different  cardes  in other  departments  of the State Government  whereunder  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

revision  was made operative with effect from  September  1, 1981.   The precise contention was that the  respondent  and other   UDCs   of  subordinate  offices  were   dealt   with discrimiinately  in  the  sense that  the  pay  rivision  in respect  of other departments made during the years  1984/85 was done with effect from September 1,1981 whereas the  UDCs of  subordinate offices were given revised S-10 with  effect from  February  1,1985.   Reliance was  placed  on  fourteen notifications relating to other departments of the state  of Rajasthan  issued  during the years 1984/85  whereunder  the revised  pay-scales  were given with effect  from  September 1,1981.   The High Cowl accepted the contention and  allowed the writ petition solely on the ground of discrimination. 3.   Mr.Aruneshwar  Gupta,learned counsel appearing for  the State  of Rajasthan,has vehemently contented that  the  High Court  fell  into  patent error in  accepting  the  plea  of discrimination  for  which  there  was  no  factual   basis. According  to him the notifications relied upon by the  High Court were issued under different circumstances and were not at all relevant to the face of the present case.  Those were die  cases  where certain categories of employees  were  not included  in  the general pay revision  provided  under  the Rules.   According to Mr.Gupta the categories of  employees, who  were left out from the general pay revision  under  the Rules,were  given the revised pay-scales for the first  time and  such  it was necessary to grant them the  pay  revision with effect from September 1, 1981 to bring them at par with the  employees who were governed by the Rules.On  the  other hand so far as the UDCs of subordinate offices are concemed, they  were  governed by the Rules and they  were  given  the revised S-9 under the Rules.  It 530 was neither a case of left-out category of employees nor the re-revision   of  the  payscale.   What  was  done  by   the notification  dated  January 23,1985 was that  the  UDCs  of subordinate offices were brought at par with the UCs of  the Secreteriate and they were revised S-10 in place of  revised S-9 with effect February 1,1985.  We see considerable  force in  the  contention  raised by Mr.Gupta.  He  has  taken  us through the notifications relied upon by the High Court.  It would be useful to briefly deal with the said notifications. 4.Notification dated January 20,1984 related to the  various posts including Junior Analytical Assistant and junior  Com- pounders/Nurses in the Ayurvedic Department.  There were two existing pay-scale with reference to the existing pay  scale of  Rs. 470-830 was revised to Rs.640-1180; but  no  revised pay-scale  of  Rs. 355-570 was prescribed under  the  Rules. Hence the notification providing for a revised payscale  Rs. 355-570  was  issued  with effect from  September  1,  1981. Similarly  there were two pay-scales in the carde of  junior Compounders and Nurses.  Revised payscale was provided under the Rules in respect of one scale,but there was no provision in respect of the second pay-scale.  The notification  dated January  20, 1984 thus provided revised pay-scales  for  the left   out   catagories  of  employees  mentioned   in   the notification relating to the Ayurvedic Department were those were left out of the general revision of the pay-scales  un- der  the  Rules  and as such it  became  necessary  to  make provisions  for  them by the  subsequent  notifications  and making the operative with effect from September 1, 1981. 5.Notification  dated  June 7,1984 relied upon by  the  High Court  related to the State Enterprises  Department.   There were  two existing pay-scales in the cardre  of  Technicians Grade  11 in the said department.  Higher pay scale was  for those  who  were III qualified and lower grade for  non  III

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

qualified.   The  Rules did not make any provision  for  the lower pay-scale and as such the State Government issued  the notification revising the lower pay-scale with    effect from September 1, 1981. 6.   It is not necessary for us to burden this    judgement by  giving details of all the notifications relied  upon  by the  High Court.  As mentioned above, Mr.Gupta has taken  us through  the notifications discussed by us.  In a  nutshell, the  employees  dealt with by  the  fourteen  notifications, relied  upon  by the High Court, were left out of  the  pay- revision and in respect of whom no provision was made  under the Rules. 7.   The  Rules  providing for the revised  pay-scales  were made by the State Government as a result of the  recommenda- tion of the pay commission which was headed by  Mr.B.P.Beri, a former chief justice of the Rajasthan High Court.  In  the process  of consideration of the recommendations of the  Pay Commission,  and  its  implementation,  the  likelihood   of various  anomel ie and is normally appointed  to  straighten the  discrepancies and deal with the omissions  which  might come  to  the  notice of the Government  after  the  initial process  of pay revision.  This was precisely what was  done by   the  State  of  Rajasthan  by  issuing   the   fourteen notifications  relating to different departments  whereunder the  revised pay-scales, which could not be  included  under the  Rules,were  provided  and  enforced.   So  far  as  the notification dated February 23, 1985 relating to the 531 UDCs of subordinate offices is concerned, it was not with  a view  to remove any anomaly or to make any provision  for  a category  which  was  left  out of  the  Rules.   It  was  a notification  issued  as a result of the acceptance  of  the demand  of the UDCs of the subordinate offices for grant  of higher  pay-scale which was given to their  counterparts  in the  Secretariat.  The High Court failed to appreciate  that the factual basis for issuing the notification dated January 23,  1985 and the fourteen notifications relied upon by  the High Court was entirely different.  No fault could be  found with  the notification dated January 23, 1985 and the  State Government and other UDCs of subordinate offices with effect from February 1, 1985. 8.   We  allow the appeal, set aside the impugned  judgement of  the  High Court and dismiss the writ petition  field  by Gopaldas.No costs. State of Rajasthan v Nandlal Singh and Ors. Civil  Appeal  No. 695 of 1995 (Arising out  of  SLP(C)  No. 7468/93)                            ORDER 9.   Special leave granted. 10.  We have today pronounced judgment  in Civil Appeal  No. 3528 of 1991 The    State of Rajasthan and Anr. v  Gopaldas. For the reasons and conclu sions reached by us in  Gopa&as’s case  we  allow  the  appeal and set  aside  the  im  pugned judgment of the High Court. State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Krishan Kant Tiwari Civil Appeal No. 696 of 1995 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13848/94)                            ORDER 11.  Special leave granted. 12.  We have today pronounced judgment  in Civil Appeal  No. 3528 of 1991  The   State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Gopaldas. For the reasons and conclusions reached by us in  Gopaldas’s

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

case,  we  allow  the  appeal and  set  aside  the  impugned judgment of the High Court. 533