Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the pay scale entitlements of employees working as Revisors in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The conditions of service of High Court employees were governed by the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1952, which provided for posts of Senior Translator and Junior Translator. Under the 1973 Rules, these posts were redesignated as Revisor and Translator respectively. The 1973 Rules were notified on January 23, 1975 and published in the Chandigarh Gazette on February 1, 1975. Under the original Schedule I of the 1973 Rules, Revisors were placed in the scale of Rs.225-500 with special pay of Rs.50 per month, while Deputy Superintendent, later known as Superintendent Grade II, was placed in a higher scale. Rules 26, 27 and 34 and Schedules I, II and III relating to salaries, allowances and pension required the approval of the President under Article 229(2) read with Article 231 of the Constitution, which approval was received in September and October 1985. Meanwhile, the pay scale of Rs.225-500 had been revised and by Notification dated August 5, 1980, Schedule I was substituted. In the substituted Schedule, the post of Senior Translator was noted as redesignated as Revisor and recommended in the pay scale of Superintendent Grade II. After receiving Presidential approval, the High Court issued Notification dated January 23, 1986 stating that Rules 26, 27 and Schedules I, I(A) and III would come into effect from September 25, 1985. Aggrieved employees, including the respondents, filed C.W.P. No.2363 of 1986, which was disposed of by judgment dated August 6, 1987. The High Court held that the 1973 Rules came into effect on January 23, 1975 and all amendments made between January 23, 1975 and September 25, 1985 were to take effect from the respective dates on which such amendments were issued. Consequently, an order dated November 17, 1987 fixed the pay of Revisors from three dates: January 23, 1975 in the old scale with special pay, January 1, 1976 in a revised scale with special pay, and August 5, 1980 in the Superintendent Grade II scale with special pay. The respondents filed C.W.P. No.2359 of 1988 contending that under the 1973 Rules, Revisors were granted the same scale and special pay as Deputy Superintendents and hence they were entitled to the Superintendent Grade II scale from January 23, 1975. A learned single Judge allowed the writ petition on January 28, 1992, holding that the respondents were entitled to the same pay scale as Deputy Superintendent with effect from January 23, 1975. The Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal in limine on August 27, 1992. The Supreme Court, examining the original Schedule I of the 1973 Rules, found that Revisors had not been placed in the same pay scale as Superintendent Grade II; they were given the higher scale only by the Notification dated August 5, 1980. The earlier judgment in C.W.P. No.2363 of 1986 only made the original Rules effective from January 23, 1975 and subsequent amendments effective from their respective dates. Therefore, the amendment granting the Superintendent Grade II scale could not operate retrospectively. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Scale Revision - Prospective Effect of Amendment to Rules - High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973, Rules 26, 27, Schedule I - The original 1973 Rules placed Revisors in the pay scale of Rs.225-500 with special pay of Rs.50 per month, whereas Deputy Superintendent (Superintendent Grade II) was in a higher scale; only by Notification dated 05.08.1980 substituting Schedule I were Revisors designated as entitled to Superintendent Grade II pay scale. The earlier judgment of the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2363 of 1986 held that the 1973 Rules came into force on 23.01.1975 and that all amendments made between 23.01.1975 and 25.09.1985 were to take effect from the respective dates of issue, so the amendment granting Superintendent Grade II scale could not operate retrospectively from 23.01.1975. The Supreme Court held that Revisors were entitled to the higher pay scale only from 05.08.1980 and the High Court erred in granting retrospective benefit (Paras 1-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondents who were employed as Revisors in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 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.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order dated August 27, 1992 in Letters Patent Appeal No.615 of 1992 and judgment dated January 28, 1992 in Civil Writ Petition No.2359 of 1988 set aside; writ petition filed by respondents dismissed; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Amendment to service rules operates prospectively from date of notification
- revised pay scale cannot be granted retrospectively unless rules expressly provide
- High Court service rules relating to salaries require Presidential approval under Article 229(2) of the Constitution
- earlier judgment directing original rules to come into force from a date does not give subsequent amendments retrospective effect
