Kunnashada Muthukoya v. Administrator U.T. of Lakshadweep , (SC) BS146167
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- R.V. Raveendran and P. Sathasivam, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 3537 of 2001. D/d. 29.8.2008.

Kunnashada Muthukoya - Appellant

Versus

Administrator U.T. of Lakshadweep & Anr. - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Mathai M. Paikeday, Sr. Advocate with Shishir Pinaki, Anuj Prakash and Sanjay Jain, Advocates.

For the Respondents :- Ashok Bhan, Smt. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani and D.S. Mahra, Advocates.

Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rule, 1986, Rules 5 - Revision of pay scale - Applicability of pay scale - Government servant was in post classified as Group 'C' Post - The Government servant would get the pay scale applicable to a Group 'C' post - A person who fell under part 'A' of First Schedule could not draw the pay provided in Part B of First Schedule & vice versa - Rule 5 does not mean that if a Government servant was a post classified as a Group 'C' post with an existing pay scale shown in the First Schedule as a Group 'D' pay scale, the Government servant would get the pay scale applicable to a Group 'C' post - All that Rule 5 provided was that except those who exercised option to continue to draw pay in the existing pay scale, others should draw their pay only in the revised pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale and that he could not draw any other pay scale.

[Para 10]

Cases Referred :-

Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan, 1997(2) SCT 649 : [1997(3) SCC 568].

Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P., 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 376 : 2004(3) Apex Criminal 557 : [2004(7) SCC 558].

Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra [2005(2) SCC 673].

JUDGMENT

R.V. Raveendran, J. - The appellant was promoted as a lineman, a group 'C' post, in the Lakshadweep Electricity department, on 2.2.1985. The pay scale of lineman was initially Rs. 85-2-95-3-110 which was revised to Rs. 210-4-226-EB-4-250-EB-5-290. The pay scale was further revised to Rs. 800-15-1010-EB-20-1150 as per Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 (for short 'Revised Pay Rules'). The appellant gave a representation dated 1.10.1994 requesting a higher pay scale. He contended that as the post of lineman was classified as a group C post, he should be given the benefit of the minimum of the pay scales prescribed for group 'C' posts under the Revised Pay Rules, that is Rs. 825-15-900-EB-20-1200.

2. By Office Memorandum dated 9.8.1995 the respondent rejected the representation of appellant for grant of the higher pay scale of Rs. 825-1200. The said memorandum stated that though the post of lineman was a group 'C' post, the revised pay scale applicable to the said post was that which corresponded to pre-revision pay-scale of Rs. 210-290 drawn by linemen and therefore appellant was entitled only to the revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1150. It was also stated that the duties and responsibilities of linemen in the Electricity Department differed substantially from linemen in other departments (that is Linemen/Wireman in telecommunications, Postmen/Mailguards in Postal department etc.); that the Fourth Pay Commission had recommended the higher pay scale of Rs. 825-15-900-EB-20-1200 only for linemen and wiremen in the Telecommunication Department on the specific condition that their recruitment qualifications should be raised; and that the revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1150 given to the appellant was therefore in accordance with the fourth pay commission's recommendations.

3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Tribunal allowed the application by order dated 28.6.1997 and quashed the O.M. dated 9.8.1995. The Tribunal held that as the appellant was in a group 'C' post, he was entitled to the minimum pay scale applicable to group 'C' posts, after the revision of pay scales; that under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986, the pay scale of Rs. 800-1150 was a group 'D' pay scale and the lowest pay scale applicable to group 'C' posts was Rs. 825-1200; and that therefore the appellant was entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 825-1200 from 1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits. The respondents challenged the said order in a writ petition (O.P. No. 13965/1998) before the High Court of Kerala. The High Court allowed the writ petition by order dated 27.1.2000 following the decision of this Court in Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan, 1997(2) SCT 649 : [1997(3) SCC 568]. The High Court held that as the pay scale applicable to the appellant before the pay revision was Rs. 210-290, he was entitled only to the corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1150 under the Revised Pay Rules, and that he was not entitled to a higher pay scale. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave. The only question that therefore arises for our consideration is whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of higher pay scale of Rs. 825-1200 as he was holding a Group 'C' post.

4. In Hariharan (supra), this Court considered a similar claim by Tool Room Assistants in the Fisheries department, whose pay scale was initially Rs. 85-128, revised to Rs. 210-290. After the Fourth Pay Commission recommendations, they were given the revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1150. The Tribunal held that as the post held by them was included in Group 'C', they were entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs. 1150-2900. Reversing the said decision, this Court held:

(Emphasis supplied)

5. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that if the ratio of Hariharan is applied, the appellant's claim is liable to be rejected. But he contended that the decision in Hariharan should be considered as having been rendered per incuriam, as it ignores Rule 5 of the Revised Pay Rules. Relying on the decisions of this Court in Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P., 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 376 : 2004(3) Apex Criminal 557 : [2004(7) SCC 558] and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra [2005(2) SCC 673], he submitted that a decision rendered per incuriam is not a binding precedent. According to the appellant, having regard to Rule 5 of the Revised Pay Rules, the revision of pay of a Government servant should be with reference to the class of post held by him and not with reference to the pay scale earlier applicable to him. He therefore contended that as the appellant held a Group 'C' post, the pay scale applicable to Group 'C' Government servants should be extended to him.

6. The principles enunciated in Hariharan is that 'classification of posts has nothing to do with fixation of pay scales" and "classification and prescribing pay scales for different posts are two different and distinct functions". These are well settled principles of service jurisprudence. The question therefore is whether Rule 5 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 carves out any exception to the said general principles of service law, or lays down a different principle, and if so whether Rule 5 had been wrongly ignored.

7. The Revised Pay Rules were made to implement the recommendations made by the Fourth Pay Commission. A brief reference to the relevant provisions of the said Rules will be necessary to consider the appellant's contention.

7.1) Sub-Rules (2), (3), and (5) of Rule 3 define the terms 'Existing Scale', 'Present Scale' and 'Revised Scale'. 'Existing Scale' in relation to a Government servant means the present scale applicable to the post held by the Government servant as on 1.1.1986. 'Present Scale' in relation to any post specified in Column 2 of the First Schedule, means the scale of pay specified against that post in Column 3 thereof. 'Revised Scale' in relation to any post specified in column (2) of the First Schedule means the scale of pay specified against that post in column (4) thereof unless a different revised scale is notified separately for that post. Rule 4 provides that from the date of commencement of the revised pay rules (1.1.1986), the scale of pay of every post specified in column (2) of the First Schedule shall be as specified against it in column (4) thereof.

7.2) Rule 5 relied on by the appellant, relating to drawal of pay in the revised scales is extracted below :

7.3) The First Schedule to the Revised Pay Rules consists of two parts. Part A relates to "revised scales for posts carrying present scales in Groups D, C & B except posts for which different revised scales are notified separately." Part B relates to "revised scales of pay for certain other categories of staff." The relevant entries in the First Schedule are extracted below :

THE FIRST SCHEDULE (See Rules 3 & 4) - PART A

Sl. No. Post Present scale Revised scale
(1) (2) (3) (4)
GROUP 'D'
xxxxx
3. All posts carrying present scales specified in Column 3. (a) x x x x x
(b) x x x x x
(c)210-4-226-EB-4-250-EB-5-290
800-15-1,010-EB-20-1,150
GROUPS 'C' AND 'B'
4. All posts carrying present scales specified in column 3. 225-5-260-6-290- EB-6-308
xxxxx
825-15-900-EB-20-1,100.

8. The Central Government has issued an Explanatory Memorandum to understand and implement the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986. The explanation given therein in regard to Rule 5 is extracted below :

9. The position that emerged from a combined reading of the provisions of the Revised Pay Rules in the context of the question raised by the appellant was as follows :

10. The contention of appellant that pay revision should be with reference to post held and not existing pay scales, if accepted would have lead to confusion, uncertainty and inconsistency. Its effect, in the case of appellant, would have been to first upgrade the existing pay scale from Rs. 210-4-226-EB-4-250-EB-5-290 to Rs. 225-5-260-6-290-EB-6-308 and then grant the revised pay scale corresponding to such upgraded higher pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986. Rule 4 read with First Schedule made it clear that the Government servant was only entitled to the revised pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale (and not any other revised pay scale corresponding to some higher pre-revised scale). Rule 5 does not mean that if a Government servant was in a post classified as a Group 'C' post with an existing pay scale shown in the First Schedule as a Group 'D' pay scale, the Government servant would get the pay scale applicable to a Group 'C' post. In fact there are several revised pay scales in Part A of the First Schedule for Group 'C' posts. If the contention of the appellant was to be accepted, and the revised pay scale to be given to him was to be delinked from the existing pay scale, then he could have chosen any of the several revised pay scales corresponding to pay scales shown as Group 'C' scales (that is Rs. 825-1200 or Rs. 950-1400 or 950-1500 or 975-1540 etc) as he did not fit into any of the existing pay scales of Group 'C'. Obviously such a course was clearly impermissible. All that Rule 5 provided was that except those who exercised option to continue to draw pay in the existing pay scale, others should draw their pay only in the revised pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale and that he could not draw any other pay scale. Further a person who fell under part A of First Schedule could not draw the pay provided in Part B of First Schedule and vice versa.

11. It is also of some relevance to note that Rule 5 in the Revised Pay Rules is not a new provision, but same as Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1973 relating to the earlier pay revision. The said rule had never been interpreted in the manner suggested by the Appellant. Be that as it may.

12. For the reasons aforesaid, the contention that Hariharan (supra) ignored Rule 5 and should therefore be considered as per incuriam is untenable. The said contention is rejected. The appeal is therefore dismissed as having no merit.

Appeal dismissed.