1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6647 OF 2003

K. BALARAMAN ... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of  

the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  

Madras dated 23rd April, 2002 in Writ Petition No.4956 of  

1999 along with other connected petitions.

Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this  

appeal are as under :

The appellant was working in Class 'C' with the  

respondent no.1 – Railway Board.    The post of Stock  

Verifiers in  the  railways  are  to  be  filled  from  the  

category of Clerks Grade I, Selection Grade Clerks and  

Sub-heads  from  Class  'C'.   Reply  filed  by  the  Railway  

Board before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras  

Bench   while   dealing   with   the   “Promotion  to  and

2

confirmation to the rank of Stock Verifiers” mentioned as  

under :    

“(1)  Promotion  of  persons  holding  substantively posts of Clerks in the offices  of the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts  Officers to the rank of Stock Verifiers will  be on considerations on seniority and merit  including fitness for outdoor work.  In the  case of Accounts Clerks promotion to the rank  of Stock Verifiers will not be made unless  they have passed the examination prescribed in  Appendix-2.   The  condition  of  passing  the  examination  prescribed  in  Appendix  2  by  Accounts Clerks before they can be promoted to  the rank of Stock Verifiers, may be relaxed,  in special cases, under the sanction of the  General Manager.

-------- (6) No increments will be allowed to a Stock  Verifier under he has passed the qualifying  examination  and  failure  at  two  consecutive  examinations  will  entail  reversion  to  his  substantive post.”(emphasis added).

The  Fifth  Pay  Commission  in  reference  to  Stock  

Verifiers in para 83:243, has recommended as follows :

“.....  It  may  not  be  possible  to  recommend  pay  scale  higher  than  that  of  Accounts  Assistants  (i.e.  Rs.1600-2660)  for  Stock Verifiers. The selection grade for Stock  Verifiers  which  was  available  prior  to  IV  C.P.C. may be reviewed as a second grade for  Stock Verifiers.  This pay scale is proposed  to be Rs1640-2900 in the present terms.  This  will motivate Stock Verifiers to continue in  their line and not tempted to Accounts/Section  Officers stream.

In  the  course  of  recommendation,  the

3

Fifth Pay Commission took note of the demand  made by the  Stock Verifiers for higher pay  scales than that of Accounts Assistants and an  incentive on acquiring graduate diploma.  The  Commission also noted the fact that  Stock  Verifiers selected were given the benefit of  pay  fixation  under  F.R.  22  (C  )  and  two  additional  increments  for  passing  the  qualifying Appendix 4 IREM examination.  After  the Pay Commission's recommendation, the pay  scales  of  the  erstwhile  sub-heads  (now  Accounts  Assistants)  and   Stock  Verifiers  became identical as Rs.1400-2600. It was also  noted  that  despite  the  incentives  of  three  advance increments for  Stock Verifiers, Zonal  Railways are facing difficulties in filling up  these posts and the Ministry had supported the  demand  for  higher  pay  scales  for   Stock  Verifiers.”

The  Stock  Verifiers  were  given  incentives  on  

passing  the  examination.   The  appellant  passed  the  

examination and was also given three advance increments.

The  respondent-Board  in  its  communication  dated  

25.07.1995  has  categorically  stated  that  three  advance  

increments granted to the  Stock Verifiers in the grade of  

Rs.1400-2600 for passing the examination may be treated as  

additional increment and cannot be treated as part of the  

basic pay.

In  this  appeal,  however,  the  impugned  

communication of 08.05.1996 came to be issued wherein it  

was ordered that additional increment will not be treated

4

as  part  of  basic  pay  and  not  to  be  reckoned  for  

calculating  the  Dearness  Allowance.  Against  the  said  

communication,  the  appellant  approached  the  Central  

Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application.  

The  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  Madras  Bench  in  

O.A.No.776/1996  has  mentioned  that  the  additional  

increment will be forming part of the basic pay of the  

individual  and  the  appellant  would  be  entitled  to  the  

consequential benefits.  The respondent-Chairman, Railway  

Board preferred a Writ Petition before the Division Bench  

of the Madras High Court against the said judgment of the  

Central Administrative Tribunal. In the impugned judgment,  

the High Court has clearly observed that :

“.....that the increments cannot be treated as  part of the basic pay, but only as a separate  element which will not count for the purpose  of calculating the D.A. etc.” The stand of the respondent-Railway Board has been  

consistent  that  the  advance  increment  granted  to  the  

appellant  would  not  be  counted  for  basic  pay,  DA  and  

pensionary benefits.   

The  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  erroneously  

held that three additional increments will form part of  

the basic pay.  In our considered view, the High Court was  

fully  justified  in  setting  aside  the  judgment  of  the

5

Central  Administrative  Tribunal.  In  this  view  of  the  

matter, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of  

the Division Bench of the High Court on merits.  This  

appeal,  being  devoid  of  any  merit  is,  accordingly,  

dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

...................J. (DALVEER BHANDARI)

...................J. (DEEPAK VERMA)

NEW DELHI; 14TH DECEMBER, 2010