LexHUKUM CHAND GUPTA versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, ICAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 831
HUKUM CHAND GUPTA
v.
DIRECTOR GENERAL, ICAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3580 of 2009)
SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND H.L.GOKHALE, JJ.]
A
B
Service Law - Pay scale -
Revision in -
Tribunal
rejected appellant's claim for upgradation in pay scale -
Propriety - Held: Proper - The appellant failed to establish
C
that the action of the respondents was either discriminatory
or beyond the purview of the Service Rules.
Service Law - Pay scale - Equation of posts I pay scales
- Distinction in pay scales between the employees working
D
at the Headquarters and the employees working at the
institutional level - Propriety - Held: On facts, it was a matter
Qf record that the employees working at the Headquarters and
at the institutional level were governed by completely different
set of rules - Even the hierarchy of the posts and the channels
E
of promotion were different - Also, merely because any two
posts at the Headquarters and the institutional level had the
same nomenclature, did not necessarily require that the pay
scales on such two posts should also be the same -
Prescription of two different pay scales would not violate the
principle of equal pay for equal work - Such action would not
F
be arbitrary or violate Articles 14, 16 and 390 of the
Constitution - Even though, the two posts were referred to by
the same name, it would not lead to the necessary inference
that the posts were identical in every manner - There cannot
be any strailjacket formula for holding that two posts having
G
the same nomenclature would have to be given the same pay
scale - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 and 390.
Service Law - Pay scale - Prescription of - Held:
831
H
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012) 8 S.C.R.
A Prescription of pay scales on particular posts is a very
complex exercise - It requires assessment of the nature and
quality of the duties performed and the responsibilities
shouldered by the incumbents on different posts - These
matters are to be assessed by expert bodies like the
B employer or the Pay Commission - Neither the Central
Administrative Tribunal nor a Writ Court would normally
venture to substitute its own opinion for the opinions rendered
by the experts.
Service Law - Pay scale - Assured Career Progression
C Scheme - Object and features of - Discussed.
The appellant was initially appointed as a Laboratory
Assistant in Group D in the National Dairy Research
Institute ('NORI'). Later, he was promoted as a Lower
D Division Clerk (Junior Clerk) and thereafter further
promoted as a Senior Clerk. Subsequently, on 15th June,
1988, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent in
the pay scale of Rs.1640-29001-. On 17th March, 1994, he
was promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO)
E on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. The respondent
revised the pay scale of Assistants on 17th June, 1995
to Rs.1640-29001- w.e.f. 1st January, 1986. However, the
pay scale of Superintendent was not revised. At that
stage, the appellant submitted a representation
F requesting that his pay scale may be revised on the
ground that in the Headquarters of Indian Council of
Agricultural Research (ICAR), the post of Superintendent
was a promotional post from that of Assistant which
carried the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/-. The
representation not having been decided, the appellant
G filed OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The
Tribunal declined to entertain the claim of the appellant.
Subsequently, the Screening Committee of respondent
institute recommended the case of one Shri J.l.P. Madan
for financial upgradation in the scale of Rs.8000-13500/-
H
HUKUM CHAND GUPTA v. DIRECTOR GENERAL, 833
ICAR & ORS.
on the basis of the instructions of the ICAR by which the
A
post of Superintendent was merged with the post of
Assistant as the post of Superintendent was treated as
'dying cadre'. In the meanwhile, the appellant reached the
age of superannuation and retired from service.
Thereafter, Shri J.1.P. Madan was granted second financial
B
upgradation w.e.f. 8th February, 2001 in the pay scale of
Rs.8000-13500. At this stage, the appellant again moved
the Tribunal claiming that Shri J.l.P. Madan being junior
to him could not be put in a higher pay scale. The Tribunal
held that the post at the Headquarters could not be c
compared with the post at Institutional level as both were
governed by different sets of ServExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.