LexKUNNASHADA MUTHUKOYA versus ADMINISTRATOR U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 917
KUNNASHADA MUTHUKOYA
II.
ADMINISTRATOR U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.3537 of 2001)
AUGUST 29, 2008
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
A
B
Service Law - Pay revision - Of Government servant-
Held: Should be with reference to the pay scale earlier
applicable to him and not with reference to the class of post c
held by him - r.5 did not mean that if a government servant
was in a post classified as a Group ·c· post with an existing
pay scale shown as a Group 'D' pay scale, the government
servant would get the pay scale applicable to a Group ·c· post
- Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, {986.,.. r.5.
Appellant was a lineman in the Electricity department.
.ir
As per the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
1986, made for implementing the recommendations made
by the Fourth Pay Commission, the pay scale of Appellant.
D
was revised from Rs.210-290 to Rs.800-1150.
E
Appellant, however, sought higher pay scale
contending that the post of lineman was classified as a
group C post, hence, he should be given benefit of the
minimum of the pay scales prescribed for group ·c• posts
under the said Revised Pay Rules, i.e. Rs.825-1200.
F ·
The Tribunal upheld the claim of Appellant holding
that though the pay scale of Rs.800-1150 was a group ·o·
pay scale but since Appellant was in a Group ·c· post, he
was entitled to the minimum pay scale applicable to group G
·c· posts after revision of pay scales i.e. Rs.825-1200.
High Court, by following the decision of this Court in
Hariharan's case, held that as the pay scale applicable to
Appellant before the pay revision was Rs.210-290, he was
917
H
918
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 12 S.C.R
A entitled only to the corresponding revised pay scale of
Rs.800-1150 under the Revised Pay Rules, and that he
was not entitled to a higher pay scale and accordingly
set aside the order of Tribunal.
Before this Court, the Appellant contended that
8
having regard to Rule 5 of the said Revised Pay. Rules,
the revision of pay of a government servant should be
)-·
with reference to the class of post held by him and not
with reference to the pay scale earlier applicable to him
and as the appellant held a Group ·c· post, the pay scale
t
C applicable to Group 'C' government servants should be
extended to him. He contended that the decision in
Hariharan should be considered as having been rende.red
per incurium, as it ignored Rule. 5 of the Revised Pay
Rules and a decision rendered per incurium is not a binding
D precedent.
·
·
Dismissing t.he a~peal, the Court
· HELD:1.1. The First Schedule to· the Central· Civil
Se'rvices (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 consists of two parts.
E Part A relates to ''revised ·scales for posts carrying present
scales in Groups D, C & B except posts for which different
revised scales are notified separately" while Part B .relates
to "revised scales of pay for certain other categories of
stc:1ff." From a combined reading of the provisions of th.e
F Revised Pay it follows: (i) From 1.1.1986, the scale of pay
of every post specified in column (2) of the First Schedule
was as specified against it in column (4) of the First
Schedule. (ii) Part A o·f the First Schedule did< not
individually name the several posts for which the revised
G pay scales were prescribed. It grouped the posts, with
reference to the existing (pre-revision) pay scale and
prescribed a single .revised pay scale. Therefore in regard
to posts covered by Part A (that is posts excluding thos.e
specified in Part B) the. entitlement of a go.veminent
servant to the revised scale of pay was with reference "to
H
KUNNASHADA MUTHUKOYA v. ADMINISTRATOR
919
U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP & ANR.
-1
the existing scale of pay (that is pre-revised scale A
applicable to h_im as on 1.1.1986 when the revised scales ,
of pay came into effect). All posts carrying a particular
pay· scale before the revision, were· given the·
corresponding revised pay scale shown in the First ·
Schedule. The pay revision was thus with reference to B ·
the existing pay scale drawn by the government servant
~
and not with reference to the 'post' held by him. (iii) Part
B of First Schedule, on the other hand, specifically
described certain posts, as for example, Junior Engineer,
Technical Supervisor etc., while prescribing the revised c
pay scales. In regard to posts described in Part B, both
the 'post' and the existing scalExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.