Gujarat High Court
Ks Vaidya & 15 vs Union Of India & 3 on 29 September, 2014
Author: R.P.Dholaria
Bench: R.P.Dholaria
C/SCA/3440/2003 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3440 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made
thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=============================================
KS VAIDYA & 15....Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & 3....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR GM JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 16
MS MITA S PANCHAL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 4
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY
MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 29/09/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA) Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/3440/2003 JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners have preferred present petition challenging the judgment dated 4th October 2002 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal' for short) in Original Application No. 301 of 1997, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to reject the O.A. preferred by the present petitioners.
2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioners are working as Accountants in the office of the Accountant General, Rajkot. It is the case of the petitioners that since their juniors are getting special pay of Rs.35/, they are getting higher pay and therefore the petitioners are required to be brought on the same scale with their juniors. It is also the case of the petitioners that the special pay of Rs.35/ was given to some 34 Senior Accountants, who were in fact not occupying the post of higher responsibility and some of them were in fact juniors to the present petitioners.
2.1. The present petitioners, therefore, preferred the original application interalia contending that they are entitled to the benefit of Note 4 of Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 and they are entitled for stepping up of their pay at the same stage in the revised scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as that of their juniors whose pay was revised vide order dated 29th April 1995.
3. We have heard Mr. GM Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioners.
4. We have perused the material available on record as well as impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. We have thoughtfully considered the submission which came to be made by the learned counsel Mr. Joshi. We have also gone through Note 4 of Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 on which reliance has been placed by Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/3440/2003 JUDGMENT Mr. Joshi. The said Note 4 of Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 reads as under:
"Wherein the fixation of pay under Subrule: (1)pay of a government servant, who, in the existing scale was drawing immediately before the 1st day of January, 1986 more pay than another government servant junior to him in the same cadre, gets fixed in the revised scale at a stage lower than that of such junior, his pay shall be stepped up to the same stage in the revised scale as that of the junior."
5. The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the judgment of the learned Tribunal on the ground that their juniors are drawing more salary in comparison to the petitioners who are seniors and therefore some anomaly is arisen and that anomaly is required to be set right by stepping up the pay pay of the petitioners at the same stage in the revised scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as that of their juniors whose pay was revised vide order dated 29th April 1995.
6. It is not in dispute that the difference in salary of the present petitioners and their juniors is only because the juniors to the petitioners are getting more salary on account of special pay of Rs.35/ per month and there is no change in their regular scale of pay. The benefit of stepping up can be awarded only if there is change in the regular scale of pay of the petitioners and their juniors. The aforesaid note does not talk about the persons who have been awarded special pay. The special pay is awarded for the special purpose and it is not a part of the salary or scale of pay. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that they shall also be given the benefit of special pay of Rs.35/.
7. In this view of the matter, whenever the law as well as fact is very much clear that since the juniors to the petitioners who have been awarded special pay by virtue of their complex nature of duties, the Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/3440/2003 JUDGMENT petitioners may also be given the benefit of special pay by treating them at par with their juniors. Considering the aforesaid factual as well as legal provision, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the Original Application preferred by the present petitioners and we see no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. The petition being devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. The parties shall bear their own costs.
(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) Jani Page 4 of 4