Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Shri G. Hari Hara Reddy vs Security Printing And Minting ... on 10 August, 2022
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5226-5227 OF 2022
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil)Nos.6290-6291 of 2018)
SHRI G. HARI HARA REDDY & ORS. ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF
INDIA LIMITED & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The present appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 13.11.2017 declining the claim of the appellants of arrears of salary in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 of the post of Assistant Technical Officer which at one stage was held by each of the appellants while introducing 5th Pay commission with effect from 1.1.1996 remained unnoticed and that came to be later noticed and rectified in the 6th Pay Commission introduced from 1.1.2006 (Rs.5500-9000) on the premise that there was a delay on the part of the appellants in knocking the doors of the Court.
The facts are not in dispute and it can be noticed from the judgment impugned itself that the appellants herein either joined service on the feeder post of Foreman or on the promotional post of Assistant Technical Officer and the Signature Not Verified next promotional post in the cadre is of Deputy Technical Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2022.08.12 18:00:27 IST Reason: Officer and when the 4th Pay Commission was introduced, the 1 pay structure from the feeder post to the next higher post in hierarchy, there were different pay scales for the respective cadre posts of Foreman, Assistant Technical Officer and Deputy Technical Officer and no one has grievance in respect of the fixation of pay in the 4th Pay Commission in respect of all the three cadre posts.
When the 5th Pay Commission was introduced with effect from 1.1.1996, there appears to be apparent manifest error which the Pay Commission has committed and to be particular the post of Foreman which is the feeder post, the pay scale was revised from 1350-2200 to 5500-9000 but the post which was higher and promotional post in the cadre of Assistant Technical Officer which was earlier in the pay scale of 1400-2300 was revised in the lower pay scale of 5000-8000.
But so far as the next higher post in hierarchy of Deputy Technical Officer is concerned, it was although revised to 5500-9000 and the anomaly in the pay scale of Assistant Technical Officer was apparent in the 5th Pay Commission, the post of Foreman and Deputy Technical Officer came in the common pay scale of 5500-9000 and the post of Assistant Technical Officer was fixed in the lower pay scale of 5000-8000 and after the grievance being raised by the employees who were working as Assistant Technical Officer, the government itself rectified its mistake by introducing in 6th Pay Commission from 1.1.2006 and the pay scale of the post of Assistant Technical Officer was also brought at par in the pay grade of 5500-9000 and a corresponding revision 2 was made of the post of Deputy Technical Officer 6500-10000 and later upgradation was made in the 6th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.2006 For simplification of the statement on facts referred to, a tabular statement may indicate the anomaly which was there in the 5th Pay Commission in reference to the post of Assistant Technical Officer and the same is reproduced hereunder:
Post 4th Pay 5th Pay Commission Rectification Upgradation Commission w.e.f.01.01.96 by 6th CPC by 6th CPC w.e.f.
01.01.2006
Deputy Rs.1600-2660 Rs.5500-9000 Rs.6500-10500 Rs.9300-34800
Technical (Not paid)
Officer
Assistant Rs.1400-2300 Rs.5000-8000 Rs.5500-9000 Rs.9300-34800
Technical (Not paid)
Officer
Foreman Rs.1350-2200 Rs.5500-9000 Rs.5500-9000 Rs.9300-34800
The appellants herein, in the first instance, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and their grievance was that the pay anomaly was apparent and the post of Assistant Technical Officer which was a promotional post in the cadre was fixed in the lower pay scale than the pay scale of the feeder post.
This could ordinarily be not possible and atleast later it has been rectified by the State authorities while introducing 6th pay commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006, but the fact is that those employees who had served as Assistant Technical Officer in the lower pay scale, they were never at fault but because of the pay anomaly which was clearly 3 manifest from the record and no justification could be tendered by the respondents in regard to the pay anomaly created and that was the reason in the 6th Pay Commission the pay scale stood revised of the post of Assistant Technical Officer held by them.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court returned the finding and granted them the benefit of revision of pay scale and consequential arrears thereto w.e.f. 1.1.1996, but on Letters Patent Appeal being preferred by the respondents before the Division Bench of the High Court, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge was set aside only on the premise that there was a delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the Court and that itself dis- entitle them to seek relief which they have prayed for at the belated stage.
Before this Court also, the learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India has vehemently stressed on the issue as there was delay on the part of the appellants in knocking the doors of the Court atleast they are not entitled to claim equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and, if at all, this Court comes to their rescue holding that they are entitled for arrears it can be of preceding three years from the date of filing of Writ Petition taking recourse to the mandate of the Limitation Act, 1963.
4 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the material on record, in our considered view, the delay may not be considered to be fatal for the appellants to claim their legitimate reliefs for the reason that delay in any manner has not caused prejudice or defeated the rights of the third parties and it is exclusively attributable to the respondents who have not looked into the pay scale at the time when the 5 th Pay Commission was introduced and it was the duty of the State authorities/respondents while introducing the 5th Pay Commission to consider the corresponding pay scale of the cadre post and if the feeder cadre post was in the higher pay scale, there appears no reasonable justification to fix the pay scale of promotional post in the lower pay scale and this being the apparent manifest error which the Pay Commission has committed atleast the delay in no manner be attributable to the appellants.
In our considered view, the appellants have made out a case for grant of not only the fixation in the revised pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 from 1.1.1996 (Assistant Technical Officer), but also the arrears in the pay scale of 5500-9000 from the date the feeder cadre post of Foreman was fixed in the higher pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 until the pay scale was revised in the 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006. 5 Consequently, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. No costs.
The respondents are directed to fix the appellants who held the post of Assistant Technical Officer in the pay scale of 5500-9000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 when the 5th Pay Commission was introduced and arrears be paid to each of them until the rectification has taken place after introduction of the 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006, and arrears be computed and be paid along with all consequential benefits including revision of pension and arrears etc. with 9% interest p.a. from the date it became due until its actual payment.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
......................J. (AJAY RASTOGI) ......................J. (C.T.RAVIKUMAR) New Delhi;
August 10, 2022.
6
ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.11 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6290-6291/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-11-2017 in WA Nos.446/2017 and 440/2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh) SHRI G. HARI HARA REDDY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 10-08-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.Sharat Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR Mr. Akshay Sahay,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Prashant Singh,Adv.
Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb,Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Khanna,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi,Adv.
Mr. Siddhant Kohli,Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Manoj Joshi,Adv.
Mr. Vardhman Kaushik,Adv.
Mr. Anand Singh,Adv.
Mr. Yogesh yadav,Adv.
Mrs.Lalita Kaushik, AOR Mr. Naresh Kaushik,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (MONIKA DEY)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file.)
7