CHANDRASHEKAR A.K. versus STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 694 · Decided: 07-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 694 
A 
CHANDRASHEKAR A.K. 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6573 of 2008) 
B 
NOVEMBER 7, 2008 
[S.B .. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Service Law - Pay revision with retrospective effect -
,.. 
Entitlement to, after resignation from service - Representation 
c claiming the benefit - Denial of by authorities concerned on 
the ground that the same had not come into force - Courts 
below denying the benefit on the ground that on the date of 
issuance of Notification revising the pay, the employee was 
not in service - On appeal, held: Since the recommendation 
D for revision of pay was not accepted by the employer, 
entitlement to the benefit not made out - Revision of Pay 
1-. 
Scale is a matter of policy decision for the State .:... No legal 
right exists in a person to get a revised pay scale. 
E 
Appellant-employee of respondent No. 2 (an 
undertaking of respondent No. 1) resigned from services 
on 23.5.1995. Government of India, subsequently issued 
an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 19.7.1995 revising the 
pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1992. Appellant made two 
F representations dated 1.1.1996 and 14.2.1996 which were 
~ 
turned down by the authorities concerned by letters 
~ 
dated 3.1.1996 and 30.7.1996 respectively, on the ground 
that the OM has not come into force in the State. 
Appellant filed writ petition. Single Judge of High 
G Court held that the appellant was not entitled to the pay 
revision because he was not in service on the date when 
the OM was issued. In intra-court appeal, Division Bench 
of High Court confirmed the order of Single Judge. Hence 
)>...... 
the present appeal. 
H 
694 
CHANDRASHEKAR AK. v. STATE OF KERALA & ANR. 
695 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
,A, 
HELD:1. In view of the merit of the matter in its 
entirety, no case has been made out for interference with 
the impugned judgment. In the instant case, there is 
nothing on record to show that the Office Memorandum B 
was brought into force. It may be true that the contention 
of the State that the Notification has been given effect to 
on and from 1.04.1997 was not the premise on which the 
---I 
High Court dismissed the writ petition, but, there cannot 
be any doubt whatsoever that the Notification revising the 
scale of pay must be brought into force. Unless the c 
Notification is given effect to, the question of deriving any 
legal benefit in terms thereof by a former employee of 
respondent No. 2 did not and could not arise. [Paras 13 
,-
and 19] [701-H; 702-A, B] 
D 
2. The Central Government as also the State 
..... r-
Government categorically stated that the Notification had 
not come into force on the dates on which the 
representations of the appellant dated 1.01.1996 and 
14.02.1996 were rejected by them in terms of their letters E 
dated 31.01.1996 and 30.07.1996, respectively. In this view 
of the matter, it cannot be said that the benefit of 
recommendation of his pay revision committed stood 
implemented on the day on which appellant resigned. 
~ 
[Para 14] [702-C, D] 
F 
~ 
State of Tamil Nadu v. Seshachalam 2007 (11) SCALE 
239, referred to. 
3. The question as to whether the scale of pay would 
be revised or not is a matter of policy decision for the G 
State. No legal right exists in a person to get a revised 
scale of pay implemented. It may be recommended by a 
_,.,..i.. 
body but ultimately it has to be accepted by the employer 
or by the State,. who has to bear the financial burden. 
[Para 16] [703-H; 704-A] 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
696 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society and 
Another v. Heavy Engineering Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. 2006 (3) 
sec 708,. ~elied on .. 
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others v. Retired 
LIC Officers Associatfon ~nd Ors. 2008 (3) ~cc 321 and UCO 
Bank and Ors. v. Sanwar Mal 2004 (4)SCC 412, referred to. 
Case· Law Reference: 
2007 (11) SCALE 239 
Referred to. 
Para 15 
2006 (3) sec 708 
Relied on. 
Para 17 
2008 (3) sec 321 
Referred to. 
Para 17 
2004 (4) sec 412 
Referred to. 
Para 18 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6573 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.1.2006 of the 
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 2004 of 
2005(A). 
K. Vishwanathan and Nikilesh Ramachandran for the 
Appellant. 
A Raghunath and G. Prakash for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Whether a person who has resigned f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.