PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR versus SUNDER SHAH KAPOOR AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 101 · Decided: 08-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, FAIZAN UDDIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

) 
., 
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH 
A 
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 
v. 
SUNDER SHAH KAPOOR AND ORS. 
JANUARY 8, 1997 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND FAIZAN UDDIN, J.J.) 
.,. 
Se1vice Law: Punjab and Hwyana High Cowt Establishment (Appoint-
ment and Conditions of Se1vice) Rules, 1973: Rules 26, 27 and Schedule I. c 
Pay scale-Retrospective revision-Pemzissibility of-Revisors in High 
Cowt granted higher pay scale of S11pe1intendent Grade II vide notification 
dated 5-8-1980-He/d: their claim for grant of higher pay scale retrospectively 
from 23-1-1975 when recmitment !Ules were notified, not tenabl~Punjab and 
Hmyana High Cowt Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Se1vice) D 
Rules, 1952-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 229(2) and 231. 
The respondents were employed as Revisors in the High Court in 
which initially there were posts of Senior Translator and Junior Trans-
lator which were governed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Estab-
E 
· Iishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1952. These 
rules were substituted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Estab· 
lishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973 in which 
the posts of Senior Translator and Junior Translator were designated as 
Revisor and Translator respectively. The 1973 Rules were issued vide 
notification dated 23-1-1975. Pay scale for both Revisor and Translator F 
was the same but Revisor was given special pay in addition. However, the 
pay scale for these posts were revised upward retrospectively w.e.f. 1-
1-1978. Schedule I to the 1973 Rules was substituted by the revised 
Schedule vide notification dated 5-8-1980. In the substituted Schedule the 
posts of Senior Translator and Junior Translator were mentioned. Against 
G 
the post of Senior Translator, a 'Note' was made which stated; " Redesig-
nated as Revisors and recommended the pay scale of Superintendent 
·'i 
Grade II". After obtaining the approval of the President of India as 
required under Articles 229(2) and 231 of the Constitution of India, the 
revised scales were made effective vide notification dated 23-1-1986. The 
respondents-Revisors were given the revised pay scale of Superintendent H 
101 
' 
102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A Grade II plus Special payw.e.f. 5-8-1975 instead of from 5-8-1980. The High 
· Court allowed the petition. Hence this appeal. 
B 
The CJUestion before this Court was whether the respondents-· 
Revisors were entitled to the revised pay scale of Superintendent Grade II 
retrospectively w.e.f. 23-1-1975 instead of from 5-8-1980. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. In the Punjab and Haryana High Court Establishment 
(Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973, as originally issued 
on 23-1-1975, Revisors ,had not been placed in the same pay scale as 
C Superintendent Grade II. TI1e Revisors were given the pay scale of Super-
intendent Grade II only by Notification dated 5-8-1980 whereby Schedule 
I of the 1973,Rules was substituted. The Revisors, therefore, can claim the 
· pay scale of Superintendent. ,qrade II with effect from 5-8-1980 only and 
they were correctly given the said scale with effect from that date. The High 
D Court was in error in holdiilg' tltat the Revisors-were entitled to pay scale 
of Superintendent Grade II with effect from 23-1~1975. The benefit of the 
pay scale of Superintertdent Grade II under the notification dated 5~8-1980' 
cannot be extended to Revisors from a date earlier than the date of the 
issue of the said notification. (1.05-H, 106-A, D-E] 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1248 of 
1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.8.92· of the Puniab &. 
Haryana High C,ourt in L.P.A. No. 615 of 1992. 
Rajinder Sachar, Rana Ranjit Singh, S. Srinivasan, for the appellant. 
D.V. Sehgal, Sr. Adv., Anant Palli, Ms. Rekha Palli, M. Monika 
Gusain and Hari Om Yaduvanshi for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of. the Court was delivered by 
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. The short question that falls for consideration in 
this appeal is whether the respondents who were employed as Revisors in 
the High Court of Puhjab and Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the 
High Court') and were given the pay scale of Superintendent Grade lI with 
H effect from August 5, 1980 are entitled to the said scale with effect from 
.,. 
' ' 
., 
) 
/ 
P&HHIGHCOURTv. S.S. KAPOOR[AGRAWAL,.T.] 
103 
January 23, 1975. 
A 
In the High Court the conditions of service of the employees were 
e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.