CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR. versus SUJIT BARAN MUKHERJEE AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 82 · Decided: 14-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CALCUITA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR. 
B 
c 
v. 
SUJIT BARAN MUKHERJEE AND ORS. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 14, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Calcutta Municipal Corporation Regulations : 
Regulation 34-A-Stepping up of pay-Claim for-Junior Copyist in 
Calcutta Municipal Corporation-Transfe"ed in Secretariat Department--Al-
lowed Rs. 50 per month as special pay towards discharging arduous duty-Pay 
scales revise~Special pay merged with pay in revised pay scales-Employee 
· started drawing higher pay than others-Other junior Copyists claiming to step 
D up their pay-Held, though on revision of pay scales, special pay came to be 
merged in the pay, it must be treated to be a special pay given to the employee 
for onerous duty to be discharged outside normal duty assigned to the 
post-Such a f ortutious circumstance would not be a ground for other seniors 
to claim parity of pay by stepping up of their pay-Their claim cannot be 
E sustained. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1549 of 
1997 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.2.93 of the Calcutta High 
p 
Court in A. No. 662/92 in Matter No. 5511of1987. 
Tapas Ray, Gaurav Jain and Ms. Abha Jain for the Appellants. 
B.K. Ghosh (Ms. Sarla Chandra) (NP), for the Respondents. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the impugned order, made 
on February 2, 1993 by the Calcutta High Court followed by contempt 
H petition, clarification petition etc. of Calcutta High Court. 
82 
•
--
CALCUTIAMUN. CORPN. v. S.B. MUKHERJEE 
83 
The admitted position is that the respondents, viz., Tapan Kumar A 
Paul and others, Sujit Baran Mukherjee and others ·and one Shankar Bose, 
all were initially appointed as Junior Copyists on May 12, 1969. Their inter 
se seniority was determined on the basis of their respective date of birth. 
Subsequently, Shankar Bose was transferred to the Secretariat Department 
whereat he had to discharge arduous duty for which he was paid special B 
pay of Rs. 50 per month. Consequent upon revision of the pay scales 
effected in 1981, the pay of the respondents and others came to be revised. 
The special pay paid to Shankar, Bo'se got merged with his pay in the 
revised pay scales. Consequently, he started drawing higher pay than Tapan 
Paul, Sujit Baran Mukherjee and others. Tapan Paul and others filed writ 
petiti~n in the High Court seeking upgradation of their scale of pay so as C 
to be on par with that of Shanhr Bose. The writ petition was allowed by 
the High Court and the Corporation was .directed to step up the pay of 
Tapan Paul and others so as to be on par with that of Shankar Bose. 
Subsequently, a petition for contempt was filed by Tapan Paul and others 
for non-compliance of the directions issued by the High Court. The appel- D 
!ant~ filed an application for clarification .. In the meanwhile, an order had 
come to be passed at the instance of Sujit Baran Mukherjee and others on 
April 23, 1993; when it was• realised that Regulation 34-A of the Calcutta 
Municipal Corporation Regulations (for short, .the 'Regulations') did not 
apply to stepping up of the scale of pay, the order passed for stepping up 
of their scale of pay of T.K. Paul and others was withdrawn which also E 
came to be challenged. The order dismissing the contempt petition was 
passed, directions to keep that amount in account pending writ petition 
filed by the Sujit Mukherjee and others were issued and consequential 
application for clarification came to be dismissed in the impugned orders. 
Thus, these appeals by special leave. 
F 
It is not in dispute that Shankar Bose was given a special pay; in other 
words, overtime pay for doing work outside the normal duties at a sum of 
Rs. 50 per month and after the revision of the pay scales, the special pay 
of Rs. 50 came to be merged in his pay. Nonetheless, it must be treated to 
be a special pay given to him since he had the onerous duty to be G 
discharged outside the normal duty assigned to the post. The question is : 
whether Tapan Paul, Sujit Baran Mukherjee and others who came to be 
appointed on the same day are entitled to have their pay scales stepped up 
so as to be on par with Shankar Bose? It is contended for the respondents 
that when such a relief was granted and was allowed to become final, it H 
84 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
would not be open to t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.