Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose in the Central Government service concerning pay fixation and stepping up for Senior Clerks promoted as Head Clerks. The Union of India and others appealed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had directed stepping up of pay for the respondents. The respondents were Senior Clerks who were promoted as Head Clerks with effect from 1 January 1984 due to cadre restructuring. Prior to 1 January 1986, 10% of Senior Clerk posts were identified as involving arduous nature of work, and incumbents posted to those identified posts received special pay of Rs. 35/- per month. The respondents were not posted against those identified posts before their promotion as Head Clerks. Their juniors, who continued as Senior Clerks against the identified posts and received the special pay, were later promoted as Head Clerks and got their pay fixed at a higher level because the special pay was taken into account. Consequently, the respondents, though promoted earlier, drew less pay than their juniors promoted later. Some similarly situated employees had earlier approached the Tribunal in OA No. 192 of 1990. The Tribunal did not grant notional inclusion of special pay but directed stepping up of salary on equitable considerations so that earlier promotees would not get less than their juniors. That decision became final as the special leave petition against it was dismissed. In the present case, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision and directed stepping up. The appellant contended that special pay was attached to specified posts and only incumbents could claim it; since the respondents never occupied those posts, the principle of stepping up was not applicable. The Supreme Court framed two questions: whether respondents could claim notional fixation with special pay, and whether they could claim stepping up in the promoted cadre. On the first question, the Court held that special pay attached to identified posts could be claimed only by those posted against them, and respondents promoted earlier could not claim it even on notional basis; the Tribunal rightly rejected that claim. On the second question, the Court explained the principle of stepping up under the Fundamental Rules: where a senior and junior belong to the same category and are promoted from the same post, and the junior promoted later gets higher pay in the promoted cadre, the senior's pay must be stepped up to equal the junior's pay from the date of the junior's promotion. The Court found that the respondents were seniors and had been promoted earlier than many juniors who later got higher pay, so the principle applied. However, the Court clarified that the stepping up should be prospective only, not retrospective, and no arrears should be paid because the respondents had not worked on the special pay posts. The Court observed that this prospective stepping up was consistent with Article 39(d) of the Constitution but that granting arrears would be deleterious to efficiency in service. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Special Pay - Pay Fixation - Fundamental Rules (Not mentioned) - Special pay of Rs. 35/- per month was attached to identified posts in the Senior Clerk cadre and only incumbents posted against those posts could claim it; the respondents, who were promoted as Head Clerks earlier without occupying those identified posts, could not claim notional inclusion of the special pay in their lower cadre pay. Held that the Tribunal rightly rejected that claim (Paras 1-4). B) Service Law - Stepping Up of Pay - Anomaly Removal - Fundamental Rules (Not mentioned) - The principle of stepping up applies when a senior and junior belong to the same category, are promoted from the same post, and the junior promoted later gets higher pay in the promoted cadre due to special pay earned in the lower post; the pay of the senior in the higher post must be stepped up to equal the junior's pay from the date of the junior's promotion. Held that the Tribunal's direction to step up pay was correct subject to clarification that it should be prospective only (Paras 1-4). C) Constitutional Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Article 39(d) Constitution of India - Stepping up of pay on notional basis was consistent with Article 39(d) but should apply only prospectively from the date of promotion, without arrears, because the respondents had not worked on the special pay posts and granting arrears would be deleterious to efficiency in service. Held that the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondents who had not been posted against identified posts carrying special pay of Rs. 35/- per month can claim fixation of their pay with Rs. 35/- per month in the cadre of Senior Clerks even on notional basis; Whether respondents can claim stepping up of their pay in the promoted cadre of Head Clerks when their juniors who were later promoted were fixed up at a higher slab in the cadre of Head Clerks taking into account the special pay drawn in the lower category of Senior Clerks
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; direction to step up pay of respondents in Head Clerk cadre upheld, but only prospectively from the date of junior's promotion, without arrears; no order as to costs
Law Points
- Special pay attached to a post is payable only to incumbents of that post
- Stepping up of pay under Fundamental Rules removes anomaly when junior promoted later gets higher pay
- Benefit of stepping up is prospective from date of junior's promotion and not retrospective with arrears
- Equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) justifies stepping up but not arrears for work not performed in special pay post
