M. RAJA versus CEERI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY PILANI & ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 31-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
)> 
M. RAJA 
A 
v. 
CEERI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY PILANI & ANR. 
OCTOBER 31, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Pay protection-Revised pay scale, claim of~Teacher 
given pay protection with other benefits on jfJining school and he accepted 
it-Recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission made applicable to the school c 
at a later date, if can be given retrospective effect-Held: Letter from the 
school stated that recommendations of Pay Commission was likely to be 
implemented, after its announcement, teacher's pay would be automatically 
protected, is not a promise to extend the benefits of recommendation coming 
in force in future-It stated that in case teacher joins earlier than the 
implementation difference in the last salary drawn and salGJy at school on D 
his joining, would be paid, does not mean that school was bound to implement 
the same with retrospective effect-Revision took place subsequently, as such 
~ 
a subsequent development-Principle of promissory estoppel would not be 
attracted-School is ready and willing to extend the benefit of revised pay 
scale from the date it was implemented-Thus, order of Division Bench of E 
High Court setting aside tribunal's order granting relief to the teacher from 
the date of appointment, calls for no interference. 
Appellant-teacher applied for appointment to the post of TGT in 
respondent no. 1 school. He was assured pay protection and was offered 
appointment with salary as per the Rules. Appellant did not join and demanded F 
for settlement of the terms. Respondent offered basic salary of Rs. 1700/-
with seven advance increments. Appellant submitted that he was promised pay 
protection till implementation of Fifth Pay Commission report by way of 
t 
personal pay and the same was not mentioned in the appointment letter; and 
that he would be drawing 1600/- basic pay in the same grade in March 1997 
in the present school and his last drawn pay was to be protected. Respondent G 
no. 1 by letter dated 21.01.1997 stated that as the pay commission report is 
likely to be implemented in its school from April, 1997, after its 
announcement appellant's pay would be automatically protected and in case 
he joins earlier than the implementation of the report the difference between 
H 
" 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A last drawn salary and salary payable at respondent's school on joining would 
be given. Appellant joined the school on 30.4.1997. Fifth Central Pay 
Commission revised the pay scale with effect from 1.01.l~J96. 
Recommendations were applied by respondent with effect from 1.07.1999. 
Pursuant thereto, appellant was put in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000 but he 
. claimed that he was entitled to pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000. Aggrieved, appellant 
B filed an application. Tribunal partly allowed the same holding that the appellant 
was entitled to pay as per the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay 
Commission with effect from the date of appointment Respondents filed writ 
K 
petition which was dismissed. However, Division Bench of High Court alHowed 
their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned 
judgment has assigned reasons for interfering with the findings of the 
Tribunal and the Single Judge of High Court that the appeitant-teacher was 
D entitled to pay as per the recommendations of the Fiftt. Central Pay 
Commission with effect from the date of appointment. There is no legal 
infirmity therein. (10-E-Fl 
I .2. Appellant-teacher had bet:n given the benefit of pay protecl:ion. He 
~ 
accepted the same. Moreover, he had also been given additional benefits. 
E Appointment offer cannot be read so as to extend such benefits in regard to 
the applicability of the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission 
which would come into force in future. There being no commitment in that 
behalf, respondents were not bound by the purported commitment. Revision 
of pay took place subsequently. Therefore, it was a subsequent devellopment. 
F 
(7-A-C) 
1.3. Respondents expected that the recommendations of the Pay 
Commission would be implemented from April, 1997, but if for one reason or 
the other, the same was given effect to from 1.07.1999, a promise cannot be 
said to have been made out that ir.-espective of the implementation of the report 
of the Pay Commission, appeilant would be given the benefit thereof. 
G Respondents in its 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.