NAIN SINGH BHAKUNI AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 41 · Decided: 08-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

~· 
-
' 
NAIN SINGH BHAKUNI AND ORS. 
A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 8, 1998 
[S.B.MAJMUDAR,S.SAGHIRAHMEDANDM.JAGANNADHARAO.JJ.] B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 14, 16 and 39-Service-Parity 
of Pay-Scales-Disparity in educational qualifications between two sets of 
employees-Appel/ants, draftsman working in Central Water Commission C 
(CWC) and draftsmen in CPWD doing similar type of work-Held, no parity 
of treatment in giving benefit of retrospective revision of pay scales to CPWD 
drajismen and not to CWC-Service law. 
Article I 6-Tribunal granting relief in separate fact situations to. 
Employees in other department who were similarly circumscribed as draftsmen D 
in C.P. WD-Cannot be pressed in service almost automatically by the 
appellant in peculiar facts of the case wherein they are not similarly situated 
as their counters parts in C.P. IVD. 
Article 136-Appeal-Discrimination regarding extension of 
retrospective benefit of pay scales-Not canvassed for consideration-Raises E 
disputed question of fact-Such questions cannot be raised before Supreme 
Court for the first time. 
The draftsmen in Grades I, II and Ill in CWC and CPWD were enjoying 
identical pay scales form 1st January, 1947 to 20th June, 1980. However, 
the pay scales of draftsmen of CPWD were revised upwards on 20th June, F 
1980 giving effect notionally from 1st January, 1973 and benefit of arrears 
from 28th and 29th July, 1978 The appellants Employed in CWC made 
number of representations to the Respondent authorities Claiming parity 
The Government of India issued Office Memorandum on 13th March, I 984, 
whereby all draftsmen Grade. I, II and III working in all the Government 
Departments similarly qualified were required to be placed and given revised G 
pay scales. This was with effect from 1st May, 1982 notionally from 16th 
November, 1978 and actually from 1st November, 1983 in view of the award 
given by the Board of Arbitrator to CPWD Draftsmen in 1980. Thereafter 
as per amendment of Recruitment Rules on 27th November, 1987 pay scale 
of appellants were revised and brought at par with CPWD from 9th November, H 
41 
42 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1998] I S.C.R. 
A 1987 with qualification also at Par. 
B 
The appellants prayed before CAT, that benefit of pay scales should be 
gi;,en to them from 1st January, 1973 instead of 9th November, 1997 partly 
notionally and subsequently actually and they were extended the actual and 
notional benefit of pay scale as per Official Memorandum of 13. 3. 1984. 
In appeal to this court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that 
the notional benefit of revised pay scales of draftsmen from 1st January, 
1973 to 16th November, 1978 instead of from 13th May, 1982 to 31st 
October, 1983 be given to them. 
C 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I. There was clear-cut difference in recruitment qualifications 
between the two sets of employees in CPWD on the one hand and CWC on 
the other and thus there cannot be any automatic linkage and parity of 
D treatment for retrospective revision of pay scales. The tribunal was right in 
considering the equities of the case granting to the appellant the benefits of 
Office Memorandum of 1984 for retrospective revision of pay scales from 
1987 as the educational qualifications were brought on par so far as the 
appellants were concerned as compared to their counter parts in CPWD. 
E 
VOi & Ors. v. Debashu Kar & Ors., (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 528, referred 
to. 
Jaspal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. etc .. [1988) 3 SCC 354, 
distinguished. [52-F-G; B-C] 
F 
2. The judicial orders passed against employees in other departments 
on the basis of separate fact situations which were found established in their 
cases by the Tribunal cannot be pressed in service almost automatically by 
the appellant in the peculiar facts of the present case wherein they are not 
similarly situated as their counter parts in CPWD. [:56-B) 
G 
3. The contention as to discrimination regarding extension of 
retrospective benefit of pay scale was never canvassed for consideration 
before the tribunal. Therefore, the disputed question of fact for consideration 
for the first time could not be raised before this court. [55 E-G) 
j 
4. The relief was given to CPWD draftsmen by the Board of Arbitrators 
H and was accepted by the authorities and if this relief became available to the 
NAIN SINGH BHAKUNI v. U.0.1. [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 
43 
appellants who were identicaily situated and 

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