LexCHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. versus V. J. CORNELIUS ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B 930 CIIlEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. v. V. J. CORNELIUS ETC. February 18, 1981 [A. P. SEN AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] Andhra Pradesh Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1969, Rule 3(2) & Funda- n1ental Rules, Rule 22(a) (ii)-Fixation of pay-Provision that juriior e1nployee in selection grade of lower post not to draw more pa!' than his senior holding y-- C a higher post-Validity of. ( D E To implement the recomn1endations of a one·man Pay Comn1ission, the State Government issued the Andhra Pradesh Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1969 iiroviding for the revision of pay and creation of selection grade posts. The selection grade scale was fixed by adding three increments to the maximU.m of the revised scale of pay. While implementing the pay scales, the Government realised that a senior holding a perma.nent post in one category but holding a post in the next higher grade on promotion would draw less pay in the higher post than a junior in the lower category who was given the selection grade. To avoid the anomalous situation thus created the Government by an executive order direct- ed that the pay of an employee placed in selection grade shall be so fixed as not to exceed the pay of his senior working in the higher post on promotion. This executive instruction was struck down by the High Court as being "iolative of Articles 14 and 16 and also on the ground that the executive- instruction could not prevail over Fundamental Rule 22 (a) (ii). F The Government thereupon introduced Rule 5(2) in the Rules with retros- pective effect from the date of the original order. In D. Krishnamurthy & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. this rule was struck down by the High Court as being violative of Articles 14 and 16. No appeal was, however, :._ __ preferred from the judgment of the High Court striking down the rule. Instead of following a uniform policy in reviSing the pay of all employees G in compliance with the direction of the High Court, the Government re-fixed the pay of some of the employees holding selection grade posts but declined to do so in the case of others on the· ground that the re-fixation would be done only in the case of employees who had secured such directions. In the appeals by tho Government to this Court it was contended that it was wrong to suggest that since no appeal had been preferred against the H judgment of the High Court in D. Krishnamurthy's case all the judgments t:X the High Court involving a similar question had become final ~ D. Krishnnmurthy's case related to an altogether different category of em.· ployees of the State Government. • • I • CHIEF SECY. TO GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH V. CORNELIUS 9 31 Dismissing the appeals, HEID : I. When the Higb Court issues a writ, direction or order under Art 226 of the Constitution, it is not open to the State Government to imple· ment the decision with regard to some and deny relief to others, although they belong to the same class of persons, and are equally governed by the principle& laid down. The State Government is expected to adopt a uniform policy in A regard to all its employees. [936 C-DJ B 2, Replacement of an executive instruction by the State Government by a rule framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution, for the fixation of pay of a per~ son promoted to the Selection Grade at a stage lower than the minimum of the scales of pay of such Selection Grade so as not to exceed the pay of his seniors working in the higher posts on promotion, does not cure the constitutional vico inherent in the Government action as the provision is violative of Arts. 14 and C 16 of the Constitution. [935 G-HJ 3. The judgment of the High Court, by which sub-r. (2) of r. 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Scales of Pa·y Rules, 1969 having been struck down as offending A1ts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution and as being not in conformity with FR 22(a) (ii) not having been appealed from, had attained a finality and the re-fixation of pay, if any, had to be done as if sub-r. (2) of r. 5 never D existed. [937 BJ 4. It is not open to the Government to question the correctness of the judgment of the Jfigh Cou11 when it had attained finality, particularly when in compliance \Vith the directions, it had re-fued the pay of some of the employees in the Selection Grade posts, on the pretext that the right of appeal was not Jost in the case of others in respect of whom no such directio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.