LexJAGDISH PARWANI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2011] 8 S.C.R. 246 JAGDISH PARWANI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5481 of 2011) JULY 15, 2011 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Service Law: -- Pay protection - Entitlement of - Employee of State Electricity Board recruited by selection to Central Government on 23.02.1990 - Pay protection claimed by employee by virtue of Notification dated 07.08. 1989 - Subsequent 0 Notification dated 28. 02. 1992 issued extending grant of pay protection to the employees of State Government Undertakings joining service in Central Government on and after 01.02.1990 - High Court ho/din? that the employee not entitled to pay protection - On appeal, held: The issue for E getting pay protection arises as soon as an employee joins his new post, where he gets his new pay scale by whatever Notifications, memorandums which are available and applicable at that stage laying down such rules regarding pay protection - Notification dated 28.02.1992 clearly states that the employees of the State Government Undertakings F selected for posts in Central Government on direct recruitment basis on and after 01.02.1992 were also extended the benefit of pay protection, as was provided in the case of the employees of Central Government Public Undertakings as per Notification dated 07. 08. 1989 - On facts, said employee G was selected and appointed to the post in Central Government on 23.03.1990 after working as an employee of the State Government Undertaking-State Electricity board, thus, the Notification was not applicable and could not have claimed for any pay protection - Also the employee accepted the H 246 -- JAGDISH PARWANI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 247 appointment without any demur or protest on the issue of pay A - Thus, order passed by the High Court was justified - Memorandum "DoPT .OM N0.1211188-Estt (Pay-/) dated 28.2.1992. Appellant was an employee of the State Government 8 Undertaking, the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB). He was selected and appointed to the post in the Central Government on 23.02.1990. The respondent- Union of India fixed his pay scale at the minimum of pay scale of Rs. 2200/-. The appellant continued to receive the C said pay for more than one and a half years. Thereafter, the appellant submitted representations claiming pay protection on the basis of a Notification issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions [Department of Personnel & Training] dated 07.08.1989. The appellant claimed that when he was released from D the service of the UPSEB on 19.02.1999, he was drawing the basic pay of Rs. 2750 per month and as such he was entitled to receive a salary of Rs. 3000/- per month, w.e.f., 23.2.1990 and not Rs. 2200/-. Meanwhile, another Notification dated 28.02.1992 was issued extending the E grant of pay protection to the employees of State Government Undertakings joining service in Central Government on and after 01.02.1990. The representations of the appellant were rejected. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application before the Tribunal seeking an order F giving him the pay protection which was last paid to him by the UPSEB. The application was allowed. The respondents-Union of India filed a writ petition. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the appellant was not entitled to pay protection. Aggrieved, the G appellant filed a Review Petition and the same was dismissed. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court H 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 8 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1. A bare perusal of the Memorandum "DoPT OM N0.12/1/88-Estt (Pay-I) dated 28.2.1992 would make it crystal clear that the employees of the State Government Undertakings selected for posts in Central Government on direct recruitment basis on and after B 01.02.1992 were also extended the benefit of pay protection, as was provided in the case of the employees of Central Government Public Undertakings as per notification dated 07 .08.1989. In the said Notification, it was clearly stipulated that the said benefit of pay c protection is effective only from the first day of the month in which the OM is issued, i.e., from 01.02.1992, which means that the said OM was given prospective effect only.- Therefore, the said OM could even be said to be a clarification on the issue. In the said Notification the 0 employees like the appellant would be enti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.