http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: P.S. SAWHNEY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1540            JT 1996 (3)   125  1996 SCALE  (2)378

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the Central  Administrative Tribunals  Chandigarh Bench made in O.A.  No.857/CH/89 on December 13. 1991. The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellant.      The appellant  argued in  person. He  contended that in view of  the orders  passed by this Court in C.A. No.3685/87 on December  3, 1987,  the  appellant  is  entitled  to  the revision  of  pay-scales  starting  from  Rs.2,000/-  w.e.f. November 1978  with annual increment @ Rs.100/- which is not given to him. When this Court passed the order, the existing scale  of   pay  was   Rs.1400/-  to  Rs.2100/-,  which  was subsequently revised  to Rs.2200/-  to Rs.4000/-  and w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to  Rs.3700/- to  Rs.5300/- p.m.  as noted  in  the counter-affidavit in paragraph 4 which reads thus:      "In accordance with the decision of      this Hon’ble  Court, the pay of the      petitioner was  fixed at Rs.2,000/-      + Rs.  100/-  special  pay  by  the      Chandigarh  Administration  in  the      pay scale of Rs.1400-60-1700-EB-75-      2000-EB-100-2100 + Rs.100/- Special      Pay  from   November,   1978   vide      Chandigarh Administration’s  letter      No:334(IH)-3-88/1592  dt.  28.1.88,      annexed as  Annexure  R-1.  He  was      allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar      at the  stage  of  Rs.2,000/-  vide      Chandigarh Administration’s  letter      No:619-IH(3)-88  1591  dt.  28.1.88      raising his pay from 2000 to 2100/-      + 100/- S.P. w.e.f. 1.11.79"      Subsequently, the Government have revised the pay scale of the  appellant from  Rs.3700/- to  Rs.5300/-on  par  with others. The  grievance of  the appellant  is that instead of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

biannual, he is entitled to the increments annually starting from  the   pay  scale   of  Rs.1400/-   to  Rs.2100/-   and proportionate revision thereof from time to time. It is seen that by  proceedings dated  January 28, 1988, the efficiency bar was  lifted w.e.f.  November  1,  1979.  Thereafter  his annual increment  Rs.100/- was  given  but  he  reached  the maximum of  Rs.2100/- as  on 1.11.80.  From 1.11.1981 in the revised scales, the appellant was given of Rs.100/as special pay. It  would appear  that there  is a  rule in  the Punjab pattern that  special pay  of Rs.100/- was provided to every employee.  Consequently   when  this  Court  had  given  the direction to pay Rs.100/- as annual increment, it would mean that  the   appellant  would   be  entitled  to  the  annual increments until  he reaches  the maximum  of the pay scales After reaching maximum of the pay-scale, the direction given by this  Court of the payment of the annual increments would not form part of the pay scales but it must be considered to be special pay, since the directions given by this Court had became final.  Consequently, he  is entitled to the fixation Of the payment of special pay of Rs.100/ every year till the revision in  pay scale  is  effected  and  annual  increment starts running.  If the  pay scale  at the  appropriate time again is  in excess  of pay  which is directed to be made to the appellant,  as soon  as it reaches the maximum, then the pay would again form part of the special pay and not part of the pay-scales.  Thus the order of this Court is required to be worked out.      If the  contention of the appellant is accepted then it would give  rise  to  dichotomy,  i.e.,  one  scale  of  pay applicable to  the appellant  and another  one applicable to the  similarly   situated  persons.  If  that  dichotomy  is permitted  to   be  continued,   it  would   create  further complications, for  persons  similarly  situated  would  lay claim for  parity. Therefore,  we  clarify  that  the  order passed by  this Court  and granting  annual increment  would mean that  so long  as the  appellant  does  not  reach  the maximum of  the appropriate  pay scale prescribed, from time to time,  he would  be entitled  to the  annual increment  @ Rs.100/- as  directed by  this Court.  Thereafter, it  would form as  a special pay. This rule would not be applicable to others. However,  when the  pay-scale  reaches  the  maximum after computation  of the annual increment of Rs.100/-, till further revision  is effected,  it would  form a special pay and would  nat form  part of the pay-scales. The respondents are directed  to work out the formula in that manner and pay arrears, if not already paid.      It is  then contended that the appellant is entitled to the local  allowances on  par with  the Punjab pattern. When option was  given to  the appellant,  he had  not given  his option. Therefore, he is entitled to the local allowances on par with  the Punjab  Government employees. We find no force in  the   contention.  It   is  specifically   mentioned  in directions issued by the Government that the option given to them to  switch  over  to  the  pay-scales  of  the  Central Government from  Punjab pay-scales  is irrespective  of  the local allowances. Local allowances are admissible as per the Central  Government   pay-scales.  Admittedly,  the  Central Government allowances  are Rs.20/-  while the  Punjab  Rules provided Rs.100/-.  Consequently, the  deduction of  Rs.80/- per mensum  is clearly consistent with the directions issued by the Government. There is no illegality in that behalf.      It is  then contended  that over  and above the revised pay scales,  the appellant  is  also  entitled  to  the  20% additional pay  as recommended  by the  Central  Fourth  Pay Commission. Since  it was not accepted by the Government, he

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

is not entitled to the 20% of the additional pay.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed only  to the  above extent. No costs.