1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9041 OF 2003

UNION OF INDIA ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

T.M. SOMARAJAN & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS

WITH

SLP(C) NOS. 14700-14701/2004 SLP(C) NO. 8967 OF 2007

J U D G M E N T   

V.S.SIRPURKAR,J.

1. It it an admitted position that the respondent No. 1  

who was a member of the state police service was inducted into  

the Indian Police Service (IPS in short)  w.e.f. 9.12.1995.  

At that time, his basic pay in the state cadre was Rs. 4650  

p.m. + special pay of Rs. 100.  Very curiously, after his  

entry into the IPS.,  his pay came to be refixed  at Rs. 4250  

+ special pay of Rs. 200 w.e.f. 1.12.1996.   

2. Respondent  No.  1   made  a  representation  dated  

16.8.1997  to  the  Accountant  General  (A&E),  Kerala,  

Thiruvananthapuram for the purpose of removal of the anomaly  

consisting in the reduction of pay in the IPC cadre vis-a-vis  

higher pay in the State Police Service.  Instead of removing  

that  anomaly,  it  was  reiterated  in  a  communication  dated  

2.9.1997 received from the Accountant General (A&E), Kerala

2

that the fixation of pay was made placing reliance on Clauses  

(iii)  &  (iv)  of  Schedule  II  of  IPS  (Pay)  Rules,  1954  

(hereinafter referred to as “the IPS (Pay) Rules”) and hence,  

there was no anomaly at all.  Respondent No. 1 again sent a  

detailed  representation  dated  6.10.1997  wherein  he  had  

elaborately explained the facts and the relevant rules with  

regard to the pay fixation on his appointment to the IPS cadre  

on promotion from the State Police Service and the provisions  

regarding the power of relaxation conferred on the Union of  

India under Rule 6 of Section III of Schedule II of the IPS  

(Pay) Rules. However, that was also rejected by communication  

dated 4.1.1998.  The respondent No.1, therefore, challenged  

the same by way of filing Original Application before the  

Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench and sought  

the following reliefs:

1. Call for the records leading to Annexure A1 & A2  

and set aside the same.

2. Issue a direction to the respondents to fix the  

basic  pay  of  the  applicant   in  the  post  of  

Superintendent  of  Police  (IPS  Cadre)   at  Rs.  

4500/- + personal pay of Rs. 400/- with effect  

from 9.12.1995 and disburse the arrears of salary  

due to the applicant.

3. To  declare that the applicant is entitled to  

have  his  pay fixed in the IPS cadre on the  

basis of the pay drawn by him in the non-IPS  

cadre  is  a  confirmed  Superintendent  of  Police

3

applying  the provisions contained in Section 1  

of Schedule II of the Indian Police Service  

(Pay)  Rules  without  giving  effect  to  the  

unreasonable definition of higher scale of pay  

contained in Clause III of Schedule II of the  

said Rules.

4. To declare that the definition of Higher Scale of  

pay contained in Clause III of Schedule II of the  

Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules is unreasonable  

and unworkable and hence should not be enforced  

for fixation of the pay of the applicant in the  

IPS cadre with effect from 9.12.1995.

5. To declare that the definition of higher scale of  

pay contained in Clause (III) of Schedule II of  

the  Indian  Police  Service  (Pay)  Rules  is  

unconstitutional and ab initio void.

6. To call for the records leading to Annexure A-16  

and  letter  NO.  20015/1/2000-AIS  (II)  dated  

27.3.2000 of the Government of India, Ministry of  

Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions referred  

to in Annexure A-16 and set aside the same.     

3. It  also  became  apparent  that  few  other  officers  

similarly placed with the respondent No. 1 were not found fit  

to be inducted into the IPC cadre along with the respondent  

No. 1  and they were inducted into the IPS Cadre subsequently.  

It was pointed out by the respondent No. 1 that those officers  

were also junior to him.  They were Shri Somasundra Menon,  

Shamsudeen, Vijayan.  Yet, inspite of the fact that all these  

officers were junior and inducted into the IPS Cadre after the

4

induction of respondent No.1, their pay were fixed at higher  

level than that of  respondent No. 1.  

4. The Tribunal had held that  the  pay of respondent No.  

1  could  not  be  reduced  from  Rs.  4650  to  Rs.  4250/-  

particularly because of the Rules governing  the pay scales of  

such State Cadre Police Officers who were inducted into the  

IPS Cadre.  For that purpose, the Tribunal took stock of IPS  

(Pay) Rules, 1954 and more particularly, Rule 4(5) thereof.  

The  Tribunal  also  took  into  account  Section  III  of  the  

Schedule-II which is referred to in Rule 4(5).  On reading of  

the same, the Tribunal correctly came to the conclusion that  

the pay of respondent No. 1  should have been fixed at Rs.  

4900/- and he was also entitled to special pay of Rs. 100/-  

Besides this, the Tribunal also took into account Section I of  

Schedule II of the IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954.  In para 8 of its  

order, the Tribunal explained as to how the respondent No.1  

was entitled to higher pay.   Ultimately, it wrote a finding  

that the respondent No. 1  was entitled to get his initial pay  

in IPS Cadre fixed at Rs. 4900/- p.m. in accordance with the  

proviso to Clause (2) Section I of Schedule II.  It also came  

to the conclusion that the Central Government had the power to  

erase any anomaly caused in fixing the pay of the concerned  

officer who had been inducted into the IPS Cadre.  Ultimately,

5

the Tribunal also referred to the peculiar anomaly caused in  

this case by the number of juniors of the respondent No. 1  

getting more pay than that of the respondent No.1  who, though  

was inducted into the IPS Cadre  earlier to his juniors, faced  

an anomaly  of earning salary lower to his juniors and even  

lesser than what he earned  as a State Cadre Police Officer.  

The Tribunal ultimately issued five direction which are as  

under:

1. The impugned order A-1 dated 2.9.1997 is set-aside. 2. The  impugned  order  A-2  dated  4.2.98  within  

practically  reiterates  the  interpretation  of  the  Rules  as  given  in  A-2  and  the  conclusions  drawn  therein set-aside.

3. The impugned order A-16 dated 22.5.2000 of the DOPT  is set-aside.

4. We declare that the applicant  is entitled to have  his initial pay fixed in the IPS Cadre on the basis  of the pay drawn by him in the non-IPS cadre as a  confirmed Superintendent of Police as on 9.12.1995  without applying the restrictive definition of the  expression  higher  scale  occurring  in  definition  Clause (iii) of Schedule II  of the Indian Police  Service (Pay) Rules, 1954.  We further declare that  in the applicant's case the context requires such  interpretation of the meaning of expression 'higher  scale of pay' that should not cause the anomalous  situation  of  the  applicant  deriving  less  pay  and  allowance than his juniors some of whom were not  even found fit to be promoted to the IPS along with  and  hence  were  considered  for  promotion  on  subsequent date or dates.  We also declare that the  anomaly  in the applicant's initial pay fixation in  the IPS is to be necessarily removed by applying the

6

provisions  of  Clause  (6)  of  Schedule  II  of  the  Indian  Police Service (Pay) Rules, 1954.  The first  respondent  is   directed   to   pass   appropriate  orders  and  ensure  removal  of  the  anomaly  in  

the applicant's initial pay fixation in the IPS by  applying  the  provisions  of  Clause  (6)  and  fixing  the applicant's initial pay in the IPS on the basis  of  his  actual  pay  in  the  higher  scale  of  Super  Indent of Police (Non-IPS) as on the date of his  promotion to the IPS.

5. The above orders and directions shall be carried out  and the consequential benefits including arrears, if  any, flowing therefore granted to the applicant at  an early date and in any case, within a period of  four months from the date of receipt of copy of this  order.”

5. The  Union  of  India  challenged  the  order  of  the  

Tribunal  by  way  of  filing  review  application  which  was  

dismissed.  Ultimately, the matter reached before the High  

Court.  The High Court also dismissed the O.P. NO. 22783 of  

2002. Hence, the present appeal.

6. Mr. Mohan Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General  

appearing for the Union of India  tried to suggest that the  

fixation  which  was  drawn  as  per  the  IPS  (Pay)  Rules  was  

correctly  done  and,  therefore,  the  orders  passed  by  the

7

Tribunal as well as of the High Court were erroneous.  

7. Mr. C.N. Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the  

respondent No. 1, however, supported the orders and pointed  

out that there would be no need to go into all the questions  

as  the respondent No.1 has already retired from the service.  

He pointed out that the Tribunal had correctly  decided the  

issues.  

8. Mr.  Jain,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  very  

fairly conceded that there was an anomalous position inasmuch  

as the juniors of the respondent No. 1 were drawing more pay  

than the respondent No. 1 herein and, therefore, that part of  

the Tribunal's order could not be faulted.  Insofar as  the  

interpretation put forth by the Tribunal on the IPS (Pay)  

Rules  was  concerned,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  

requested us to keep the question open.   

9. We  have  considered  the  order  of  the  Tribunal  in  

detail.  We  are  in  agreement  with  the  Tribunal's  well  

considered order as  also of the High Court.  In our opinion,  

after  entering  into  the  IPS  cadre  from  the  State  Cadre  

Service, the pay of such an officer should not be reduced.  

10. With  these  observations,  we  feel  that  there  is  no

8

infirmity in the  orders of the Tribunal and the High Court.  

We do not see any merit in this appeal which is, accordingly,  

dismissed.  

11. It is reported before us that the respondent No. 1 has  

still not been able to get the fruits of the orders of the  

Tribunal and High Court which were in his favour.  We direct  

the Union of India to work out and pay the benefits to be  

given to the respondent No. 1 within six months from today.

SLP(C) Nos. 14700-14701/2004 & 8967 of 2007:

Delay condoned.

It is not disputed by the parties that the questions  

involved in these petitions are identical with those involved  

in Civil Appeal No. 9041 of 2003.

In view of the orders passed in Civil Appeal No. 9041  

of 2003, these Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.     

.......................J.

[ V.S. SIRPURKAR ]

.......................J.

[ DEEPAK VERMA ]

NEW DELHI

OCTOBER 21, 2009.