P.S. SAWHNEY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 258 · Decided: 07-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.S. SA WHNEY 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 7, 1996 
B 
K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law : 
Increments-Grant of-Court's order-Cla1ification-Annual incre-
C ments to be given to appellant till the maximum of the pay-schle is 
reached-The increments thereafter would Jann a special pay-However this 
is not applicable to other employees-Local allowances-Since appellant 
switched over to Central Govemment pay-scales, local allowance admissible 
at Rs. 20 p.m. as against Rs. 100 p.m. in respect of Punjab pay scales-Ad-
ditional pay of 20% recommended by Fourth Pay Commission-Since the 
D recommendation n9t accepted, not entitled the 20% of additional pay. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1525 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.91 of the Central Ad-
E ministrative Tribunal at Chandigarh, in O.A. No. 857-CH/89. 
Appellant-in-person. 
Mrs. Kanwaljit Kochar and Ms. Rani Chhabra for the Respondents. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench made in O.A. No. 857/CH/89 
on December 13, 1991. The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appd-
G lant. 
The appellant argued in person. He contended that in view of the 
orders passed by this Court in C.A. No. 3685/87 on December 3, 1987, the 
appellant is entitled to the revision of pay-scales starting from Rs. 2,000 
w.e.f., November 1978 with annual increment@ Rs. 100 which is not given 
H to him. When this Court passed the order, the existing scale of pay was 
258 
P.S.SAWHNEYv. U.0.1. 
259 
Rs. 1400 to Rs.2100, which was subsequently revised to Rs. 2200 to Rs. A 
4000 and w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to Rs. 3700 to Rs. 5300 p.m. as noted in the 
counter-affidavit in paragraph 4 which reads thus : 
"In accordance with the decision of this Hon'ble Court, the pay of 
the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 2,000 + Rs. 100 special pay by the B 
Chandigarh Administration in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-60-1700-
EB-75-2000-EB-100-2100 + Rs. 100 Special Pay from November, 
, 1978 vide Chandigarh Administration's letter No : 334(IH)-3-
88/1592 dt. 28.1.88, annexed as Annexure R-1. He was allowed to 
cross the Efficiency Bar at the State of Rs. 2,000 vide Chandigarh 
Administration's letter No : 619-IH(3)-88 1951 dt. 28.1.88 raising C 
his pay from 2000 to 2100 + 100 S.P. w.e.f. 1.11.79". 
Subsequently, the Government have revised the pay scale of the 
appellant from Rs. 3700 to Rs. 5300 on par with others. The grievance of D 
the appellant is that instead of biannual, he is entitled to the increments 
annually starting from the pay scale of Rs.1400 to Rs. 2100 and propor-
tionate revision thereof from time to time. It is seen that by proceedings 
dated January 28, 1988, the efficiency bar was lifted w.e.f. November 1, 
1979. Thereafter his annual increment Rs. 100 was given but he reached 
the maximum of Rs. 2100 as on 1.11.80. From 1.11.1981 in the revised E 
scales, the appellant was given of Rs. 100 as special pay, It would appear 
that there is a rule in the Punjab pattern that special pay of Rs. 100 was 
provided to every employee. Consequently when this Court had given the 
direction to pay Rs. 100 as annual increment, it would mean that the 
appellant would be entitled to the annual increments until he reaches the F 
maximuni of the pay scales. After_ reaching maximum of the pay-scale, the 
direction given by this Court of the payment of the annual increments 
would not form part of the pay scales but it must be considered to be 
special pay, since the directions given by this Court had became final. 
Consequently, he is entitled to the fixation of the payment of special pay 
of Rs. 100 every year till the revision in pay scale is effected and annual G 
increment starts running. If the pay scale at the appropriate time again is 
in excess of pay which is directed to be made to the appellant, as soon as 
it reaches the maximum, then the pay would again form part of the special 
pay and not part of the pay-scales. Thus the order of this Court is required 
to be worked out. 
H 
260 
SUPREME COURT REPORTs 
[1996) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
. If the contention of the appellant is accepted then it would give rise 
to dichotomy, i.e., one scale of pay applicable to the appellant and another 
one applicable to the similarly situated persons. If that dichotomy is 
·permitted to be continued, it would create further complications, for 
·persons similarl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.