MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] versus RAJ KUMAR ANAND

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 1076 · Decided: 14-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1076                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
RAJ KUMAR ANAND
(Civil Appeal No. 3052 of 2019)
MARCH 14, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Service law:
Fixation of pay – Grant of Assured Career Progression-ACP
to the respondent-trained graduate teacher under the ACP Scheme
placing him in Trained Graduate Teacher pay scale vide order dated
25.4.2008 w.e.f. 10.8.2006 – Subsequently, on 29.8.2008, 6th Central
Pay Commission enforced and Central Civil Service (Revised Pay)
Rules, 2008 framed and notified to revise the salary from 01.01.2006
– Revision of pay of respondent in accordance with the Rules of
2008, fixing pay u/r. 7 – Representation by respondent for fixation
of pay u/r. 11, however, pay not fixed u/r. 11 – Application before
the tribunal for correct fixation of pay u/r. 11 – Dismissal of
application as also review – However, in writ petition, the High
Court held that pay was wrongly fixed u/r. 7 and was required to be
done u/r. 11 – On appeal, held: ACP was granted to the respondent
between 01.01.2006 and 29.8.2008 i.e. the date of notification of
2008 Rules – It was granted w.e.f. 10.8.2006 vide order dated
25.4.2008 – Thus, the benefit of upgraded pay scale was given to
the respondent in between the said dates– Once he has elected for
revised pay scale w.e.f. 10.8.2006, the date on which he was placed
in the upgraded pay scale, obviously, r. 7 cannot be said to be
applicable – Rule 11 would be applicable  which deals with fixation
of the pay in the revised pay scale in case such an option is exercised
under the 2008 Rules – Thus, the High Court correct in applying r.
11 as Note 2A of the r. 7 not applicable - Central Civil Service
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008: rr. 5, 7, and 11.
Union of India & Ors. v. K.V. Rama Raju & Ors.
2018 (2) SCALE 239 – distinguished.
Case Law Reference
2018 (2) SCALE 239
distinguished
Para 7
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 1076
1076
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1077
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3052
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 8119 of 2015.
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos.3053-3054 of 2019.
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Venkatesh, Atulesh Kumar, Kuldeep
Chauhan, Ms. Nishtha Kumar, Samarth Kashyap, Ms. Anindita Barman,
B. V. Balaram Das, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Ms. Punam Singh, Praveen
Swarup,  Advs. for the Appellants.
For Respondent: Caveator-in-person.
The following Order of the Court was passed
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The facts lie in a narrow compass.  The respondent was
appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Primary School Teacher) in East
Delhi Municipal Corporation now EDMC, Education department,
Shahdara (North) on 10.08.1994. On 04.01.2007, he was promoted as
Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Social Science) in Government of
NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education and was posted as such on
17.3.2007. The respondent was granted ACP under the Assured Career
Progression Scheme placing him in Trained Graduate Teacher pay scale
vide order dated 25.4.2008 w.e.f. 10.8.2006.
4. Later, on 29.8.2008, 6th Central Pay Commission (in short
‘CPC’) was enforced and the rules i.e., Central Civil Service (Revised
Pay) Rules, 2008 were framed and notified to revise the salary from
01.01.2006. On 18.11.2009 pay of respondent was revised in accordance
with the Rules of 2008. A clarification was issued by the Ministry of
Finance, Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell in respect of
the manner of pay fixation in the revised pay structure on 29.01.2009. A
clarification was issued on 27.1.2009. Another clarification was issued
by Government of India Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training on 22.12.2010, with respect to the
manner of fixation of pay.  As pay of the respondent was fixed under
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAJ KUMAR ANAND
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1078                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
Rule 7 and not under Rule 11 of the Rules 2008, he filed a representation
for fixation of pay in terms of proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules, 2008.
5. As pay was not correctly fixed, the respondent filed an original
application before Central Administrative Tribunal for correct fixation of
the pay under Rule 11 of the Rules, 2008.  The Tribunal vide order dated
17.05.2012 in O.A. No.2475/2011 directed the concerned authorities to
pass a speaking order deciding on respondent’s representation. Thereafter
the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.