Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the revision of pay scales for government servants in Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Civil Servants (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1983, effective September 1, 1981. The respondent, Gopaldas, was an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in a subordinate office. Under the Rules, UDCs of subordinate offices were granted revised scale S-9 (Rs. 520-925), while UDCs of the Secretariat received a higher revised scale S-10 (Rs. 610-1090). Gopaldas and other UDCs of subordinate offices represented to the Government that there was no justification for denying them the higher scale given to Secretariat UDCs. The State Government accepted this representation and, by notification dated January 23, 1985, granted revised S-10 to UDCs of subordinate offices with effect from February 1, 1985. Gopaldas filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court seeking the revised S-10 from September 1, 1981 instead of February 1, 1985, contending that the State had issued fourteen notifications during 1984-85 revising pay scales of various other categories of employees with effect from September 1, 1981, and that denying the same retrospective effect to UDCs of subordinate offices amounted to discrimination. The High Court accepted this contention and, by judgment dated December 21, 1988, allowed the writ petition directing the State to grant revised S-10 from September 1, 1981. The State of Rajasthan appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the fourteen notifications relied upon by the respondent and found that they were issued for categories of employees who had been left out of the general pay revision under the Rules and for whom no revised pay scale had been prescribed. For example, a notification dated January 20, 1984 related to certain posts in the Ayurvedic Department where one of two existing pay scales had no corresponding revised scale under the Rules; similarly, a notification dated June 7, 1984 related to technicians Grade II where the lower pay scale was not covered. The court noted that these notifications were issued to remove anomalies and omissions, and hence were made effective from the original date of revision, September 1, 1981, to bring those left-out employees at par with others. In contrast, the UDCs of subordinate offices were already covered by the Rules and were given revised S-9. The subsequent grant of revised S-10 was not to correct an omission but was an upward revision granted upon their representation, bringing them at par with Secretariat UDCs. Therefore, the State could legitimately fix a later effective date, February 1, 1985, for this upward revision. The court held that the High Court erred in treating the two situations as comparable and in finding discrimination. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs. Two companion appeals arising from similar circumstances were also allowed on the same day applying the same reasoning.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Revision - Discrimination - Effective Date of Revised Pay Scale - Rajasthan Civil Servants (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1983 - The High Court directed grant of revised S-10 to UDCs of subordinate offices from 1.9.1981 based on 14 notifications granting earlier dates to other categories; the Supreme Court found that these notifications pertained to categories omitted from the Rules, whereas UDCs were already covered by revised S-9, so the later grant from 1.2.1985 was an upward revision, not an anomaly removal; no discrimination was made out. Held that the appeal is allowed, High Court judgment set aside, and writ petition dismissed. (Paras 2-8) B) Service Law - Anomaly Removal vs. Upward Revision - Distinction in Pay Fixation - Rajasthan Civil Servants (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1983 - The court distinguished between notifications issued to remove anomalies or omissions (retrospective effect) and notifications issued upon fresh demand for higher pay scale (prospective effect); the former involved left-out categories while the latter involved already covered employees seeking parity with another cadre; hence the State could legitimately set a later effective date for the latter. Held that the notification dated January 23, 1985 granting revised S-10 from February 1, 1985 was valid and not discriminatory. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the UDCs of subordinate offices were discriminated against by the State Government in not granting them the revised S-10 pay scale with effect from September 1, 1981, when other categories of employees were granted revised pay scales from that date, and whether the High Court erred in directing retrospective grant based on notifications for left-out categories.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court set aside; writ petition filed by Gopaldas dismissed; no costs. The UDCs of subordinate offices are entitled to revised S-10 only from February 1, 1985.
Law Points
- Pay revision
- discrimination
- classification
- reasonable classification
- anomaly removal
- prospective effect of pay revision
- equal pay for equal work
- left-out category
