Case Note & Summary
The litigation concerned a service pay dispute between an employee and the Union of India. The appellant, P.S. Sawhney, appeared in person and challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, which had rejected his claim in O.A. No.857/CH/89 on December 13, 1991. The dispute arose from an earlier order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3685/87 dated December 3, 1987, which directed fixation of the appellant's pay at Rs.2,000 with an annual increment of Rs.100 from November 1978. The existing pay scale at that time was Rs.1400-2100, later revised to Rs.2200-4000 and from January 1, 1986 to Rs.3700-5300. The appellant contended that he was entitled to revision of pay scales starting from Rs.2,000 and annual increments of Rs.100, and that instead of biannual increments, he should receive annual increments. The respondents, in their counter-affidavit, stated that his pay was fixed at Rs.2,000 plus Rs.100 special pay and he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar at Rs.2,000 effective November 1, 1979, reaching the maximum of Rs.2,100 by November 1, 1980, and thereafter he was given Rs.100 as special pay. The appellant also raised two additional claims: local allowances on par with the Punjab pattern and 20% additional pay as recommended by the Fourth Central Pay Commission. The court examined the earlier direction and clarified that the annual increment of Rs.100 was payable only until the employee reached the maximum of the applicable pay scale; thereafter the amount would be treated as special pay and would not form part of the pay scale. This interpretation was necessary to avoid creating different pay scales for similarly situated persons, which would lead to claims of parity and complications. The court rejected the claim for local allowances, holding that the option to switch to Central Government pay scales from Punjab pay scales was irrespective of local allowances, and local allowances were admissible only as per Central Government pay scales. Since the Central Government allowance was Rs.20 while the Punjab rules provided Rs.100, the deduction of Rs.80 per month was found to be consistent with the Government directions and not illegal. The court also rejected the claim for 20% additional pay because the Government had not accepted the recommendation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed only to the extent of directing the respondents to work out the formula for annual increment and special pay and pay arrears, if not already paid. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Fixation and Increments - Annual increment directed by court is payable only until employee reaches maximum of applicable pay scale; thereafter it becomes special pay and not part of pay scale - No specific Act cited; order in C.A. No.3685/87 - The appellant claimed annual increment of Rs.100 from November 1978 based on earlier Supreme Court order. The court held that the direction meant annual increment is payable only until the employee reaches the maximum of the pay scale; after reaching maximum, the increment amount is to be treated as special pay, not merged with pay scale, to avoid dichotomy with similarly situated employees. Respondents directed to work out the formula and pay arrears if not already paid. Held that this rule applies only to the appellant, not to others (Paras 1-2). B) Service Law - Local Allowances - Employee who opted for Central Government pay scales is entitled to local allowances as per Central Government scales, not Punjab pattern - No Act cited; Government directions - The appellant claimed local allowances on par with Punjab pattern, where rate was Rs.100, while Central allowance was Rs.20. The court rejected the claim, holding that the deduction of Rs.80 per month is consistent with Government directions and the option exercised. Held that local allowances are admissible only as per Central Government pay scales (Paras 2-3). C) Service Law - Additional Pay - Recommendation of Fourth Central Pay Commission for 20% additional pay not binding unless accepted by Government - No Act cited - The appellant claimed 20% additional pay recommended by the Fourth Central Pay Commission. The court rejected the claim because the Government had not accepted the recommendation. Held that the appellant is not entitled to 20% additional pay (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to annual increment of Rs.100 from November 1978 and how it operates after reaching maximum of pay scale; whether appellant is entitled to local allowances on par with Punjab pattern; whether appellant is entitled to 20% additional pay recommended by Fourth Central Pay Commission
Final Decision
Appeal allowed only to the extent of directing respondents to work out the formula for annual increment/special pay and pay arrears if not already paid; claims for local allowances and 20% additional pay rejected; no costs.
Law Points
- Annual increment directed by court is payable only until employee reaches maximum of applicable pay scale
- thereafter it becomes special pay and not part of pay scale
- local allowances admissible only as per Central Government pay scales
- recommendation of Fourth Central Pay Commission not binding unless accepted by Government
