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

PETITIONER: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTCHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS REGISTRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUNDER SHAM KAPOOR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/01/1997

BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, FAIZAN UDDIN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      S.C. AGRAWAL, J.      The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is  whether the  respondents  who  were  employed  as Revisors  in   the  High   Court  of   Punjab  and   Haryana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the High Court’) and were given the pay  scale of  Superintendent Grade  II with effect from August 5,  1980 are  entitled to  the said scale with effect from January 23 1975.      In the  High Court  the conditions  of service  of  the employees  were   earlier  governed   by  the   High   Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1952 (hereinafter  referred to  as "the  1952 Rules"). Under the 1952  Rules there  were posts  of Senior  Translator and Junior Translator.  Keeping in  view the  recommendations of the Pay  Commission constituted  by the  State of  Punjab in 1968, when  the High  Court Establishment  (Appointment  and Conditions of  Service) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the  1973 Rules") were made by the High Court, the posts of Senior  Translator and  Junior Translator were designated as Revisor  and Translator respectively. The 1973 Rules were issued vide  Notification dated  January 23,  1975 and  were published in  the Chandigarh  Gazette on  February 1,  1975. Under Rules  26, 27  read with  Schedule I of the 1973 Rules Revisors were placed in the scale Rs. 225-500 with a special pay of  Rs. 50  per month and Translators were placed in the scale Rs.  225-500. Since  Rules 26, 27 and 34 and Schedules I, II  and III of 1973 Rules related to salaries, allowances and pension,  etc. of  the employees, the same were sent for approval of  the President of India as required under Clause (2) of Article 229 read with Article 231 of the Constitution of India.  The  approval  of  the  President  of  India  was received vide  letters dated  September 25, 1985 and October 30, 1985. In the meanwhile, the pay scale of Rs. 225-500 had been revised  to Rs 600-850 with effect from January 1, 1978 and by  Notification dated  August 5, 1980 Schedule I of the 1973 Rules  was substituted. In the substituted Schedule the posts  of  Senior  Translator  and  Junior  Translator  were mentioned. In  the remarks  column against  the post  Senior Translator the following note was made:-

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

    "Note: Redesignated as Revisors and      recommended  the   pay   scale   of      Superintendent Grade  II  i.e.  Rs.      800-25-850-30-1000/40-1200/50-      1400."      Similarly, as against the post of Junior Translator the following note was made in the remarks column:-      "Redesignated  as  Translators  and      recommended  the   pay   scale   of      Assistants i.e.  Rs. 570/-  1080  &      also the selection Grade."      After receiving the approval of the President of India, Notification dated  January 23,  1986 was issued by the High Court  wherein  it  was  notified  that  Rules  26,  27  and Schedules I,  I(A) and  3 shall come into effect with effect from September  25, 1985.  Feeling  aggrieved  by  the  said Notification dated  January 23,  1986, a number of employees working as  Revisors and  Translators  in  the  High  Court, including the  respondents who  were  working  as  Revisors, filed a  Writ Petition (C.W.P. No. 2363 of 1986) in the High Court wherein  they claimed  that Rules 26, 27 and Schedules I, I(A) and 3 should be brought into effect with effect from March 1,  1974, the  date of   enforcement  agreed to by the then Chief  Justice while  approving the  draft rules on the administrative side.  The said Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court by judgment dated August 6, 1987. The High Court held that in letter dated September 25, 1985 conveying the approval  of the  President of India to Rules 26, 27 and Schedules I,  I(A) and  III of  the 1973 Rules, it is stated that the rules shall come into effect from the date of issue and since  the 1973  Rules were issued by Notification dated January 23,  1975, the  said Rules  came  into  effect  with effect from January 23, 1975 and all amendments to the Rules made between January 23, 1975 and September 25, 1985 were to take  effect   from  the  respective  dates  on  which  such amendments were  issued from  time to  time. The High Court, therefore, quashed  the Notification  dated January 23, 1986 and directed that January 23, 1975 be treated as the date of enforcement of the 1973 Rules and that the pay and allowance of the petitioners in the said Writ Petition should be fixed on the  basis that the 1973 Rules came into force on January 23, 1975.      Thereafter  the   High  Court  issued  an  order  dated November 17,  1987 whereby  the pay of Revisors was fixed as under:-            Date               Scale of Pay      i)    23.1.1975          Rs. 225-15-360/20-500 plus                               Rs. 50 p.m. as special pay      ii)   1.1.1976           Rs. 600-20700-25-850/30-                               1000-40-1080-40-1120 plus                               Rs. 50 p.m. as special pay      iii)  5.8.1980           Rs. 800-25-350-30-1000-40                               1200/50-1400 plus Rs. 50                               p.m. as special pay      Feeling aggrieved  by the said order dated November 17, 1987, the  respondents filed  another Writ  Petition (C.W.P. No. 2359  of 1988)  in the High Court which was allowed by a learned single  Judge of  the High  Court by  judgment dated January 28,  1992. The  learned single Judge held that under the 1973 Rules Revisors have been granted the same scale and special pay  as admissible  to Deputy  Superintendents  (who were subsequently  designated as  Superintendents Grade  II) and, therefore,  the respondents  who  had  filed  the  Writ Petition in  the High  Court are  entitled to  the same  pay scale as  Deputy Superintendent  (Superintendent  Grade  II)

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

with effect  from January  23, 1975.  Letters Patent  Appeal (L.P.A. No.  615 of 1992) filed by the appellant against the said judgment of the learned single Judge has been dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated August 27, 1992. Hence this appeal.      By order  dated November  17, 1987, the respondents, as Revisors, have  been given  the pay  scale of  Rs.  800-1400 which is also the pay scale of Superintendents Grade II plus Rs. 50  p.m. as special pay with effect from August 5, 1980. The question  is whether  the respondents  are  entitled  to claim the  same pay  scale as  that of Deputy Superintendent (Superintendent Grade II) with effect from January 23, 1975. The High  Court has  held that  they are  so entitled on the view that under the 1973 Rules they have been given the same pay scale  as that  of Deputy Superintendent (Superintendent Grade II).  This view is, however, not borne out by Schedule I of  the 1973  Rules as originally issued vide Notification dated January  23, 1975. Under Schedule I of the 1973 Rules, as originally  notified, the  post of  Deputy Superintendent mentioned at  serial No. 2 of the posts in the Group of non- Gazetted Ministerial  Establishment was  placed in the scale of Rs. 275-15-410/20-550 and in the revised grade of 350-25- 500/30/650 with  effect from  June  6,  1972.  The  post  of Revisor was  mentioned at  serial no.  8 in the non-Gazetted Ministerial Establishment  and the  pay scale  fixed for the said post  was Rs.  225-15-360/20-500. There  was a  further provision for  special pay  of Rs.  50 p.m.  for the post of Revisor. It  would thus  be seen  that in the 1973 Rules, as originally issued on January 23, 1975, Revisors had not been placed in the same pay scale of Superintendent Grade II only by Notification  dated August  5, 1980 whereby Schedule I of the 1973  Rules was  substituted and  against  the  post  of Senior Translator  it was  mentioned in the remarks column : "Senior Translators  have been  redesignated as  Revisors in the pay scale of Supdt. Grade II". This would show that till the Notification  dated August  5, 1980  was issued Revisors had not  been given  the same  pay scale  as  Superintendent Grade II.  Revisors, therefore,  can claim  the pay scale of Superintendent Grade II with effect from August 5, 1980 only and they  were correctly  given the  said scale  with effect from that date under order dated November 17, 1987. The High Court was  in error  in  quashing  the  said  order  and  in directing  that  Revisors  are  entitled  to  pay  scale  of Superintendent Grade II with effect from January 23, 1975.      In order to hold that Revisors are entitled to the same pay scale  as  Superintendent  Grade  II  with  effect  from January 23,  1975,  the  learned  single  Judge  has  placed reliance on  the earlier judgment of the High Court in Civil Writ Petition  No. 2369 of 1986 wherein it was directed that the 1973  Rules shall  be treated  to have  come into effect from January  23, 1975. The said judgment lays down that the 1973 Rules,  as issued  by Notification  dated  January  23, 1975, would  come into  force with  effect from  January 23, 1975. It  also lays  down that  all amendments  to the  1973 Rules made  between January  23, 1975 and September 25, 1985 were to  take effect from the respective dates on which such amendments  were   issued  from  time  to  time.  Since  the amendment in  the Schedule  I to  the 1973 Rules was made by Notification dated  August 5,  1980, it  can only  come into force with effect from the date of issue of the Notification dated August  5, 1980  and not  with effect from January 23, 1975 as  held by  the learned  single Judge  in the impugned judgment. The  benefit of  the pay  scale of  Superintendent Grade II  under the Notification dated August 5, 1980 cannot be extended to Revisors from a date earlier than the date of

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

the issue of the said Notification.      For the reasons aforementioned, we are unable to uphold the judgment  of the  learned single  Judge as well as order passed by  the Division  Bench of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore,  allowed, the  order dated  August  27,  1992 passed in  Letters Patent  Appeal No. 615 of 1992 as well as judgment of  the learned single Judge dated January 28, 1992 passed  in  Civil  Writ  Petition  No.  2359  of  1988  are, therefore, set  aside and  the Writ  Petition filed  by  the respondents is  dismissed. But in the circumstances there is no order as to costs.