S. L. AHMED & OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 26-07-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
,, 
• 
\ 
• 
I 
. A 
S. L. AHMED & OTHERS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
July 26, 1982 
(R.S. PATHAK A.ND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.) 
• 
Central.Civil Strvlct1 (Rev/std Pay) Rul.s, 1973-R.,lslon of•<•I• of pay-
C 
Radio Optrators Grade Ill (Naik) In C.R.P.F-Yalldlty of,' 
An identical scale of pay was being enjoyed by both Naiks and Radio 
Operators Grade III (Naik) in the Central Reserve Police Poree before the revi-
sion of scales of pay, of Central Government employees with effect from January 
1, 1973 consequent upon the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. 
However, Radio Operators Grade Ill -(Naik) were entitled to a special pay of 
Rs. 30. The Pay Commi.Sion recoinmended the scale of pay of Rs. 225-308 
·ror the post of Naik but did not make any separate recommendation in reSpect 
of Radio Operator Grade Ill (Naik), 
The petitioners who were Radio Operators Grade Ill (Naik) were initially 
paid a salary of Rs. 250 with a special pay of Rs. 30 from January I. 1973. 
They were subsequently placed in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 225-308 given 
to Naiks with a special pay of Rs. 30 and the excess &mount paid earlier was 
sought to be recovered from therli. 
The petitioners contended : (i) that they were entitled to the scale of pay 
of Rs. 260-430 as that. was the scale of pay prescnbed for posts in oiher depan-
ments for which matriculation was the minimum qualification, (ii) that their scale 
of pay could not be far below the scale of pay of Rs. 330·480 prescribed for the 
next immediate seriior post of Radio Oi>erator Grade II and (iii) that they should 
be paid at par with comparable government employees on the civil side. In the 
alternative, the petitioners contended that they were entitled to the pay of.Rs. 250 
' and the special pay of Rs. 30 patd to them befol-e refixation of their salary. 
Dism_issing the petition, . 
HELD: l. The minimum quali'&ation prescribed for the post of Naik as 
on :January 1, 1973 was Middle School Examination and it bad been raised to 
Matriculation Eiamination only fron;1 JanuarY 24. 1975. As Naiks and Radio 
Operators Grado Ill (Naik) had been uniformly treated at par i~ the matter of that 
basic qualification, it was not open to the petitioners to base their claim with ~f"., 
ronce to a qualification which had not ex.isl~ gn Jan~~!Y 11 197$. [S ll-Gl 
. 
. 
·o 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
.D 
G 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
2. It was not for the Court to examine how far below should, be the 
revised scale of pay of Radio Operators Grade Ill as compared to that of Radio 
Operators Grade II. . If the Government had prescribed a particlllar pay Scale in 
respect of them. alJ that the Court Could do wa.S tO merely pronounce on the vali-
dity of that fixation. If the prescription was found contrary to law, the Court 
would strike it down and direct the Government to take a fresh decision in the 
matter. •This case was very different from one where" the' Court had sought to 
prescribe scaieS of pay in appeals directly prefer~ed from an award of the Labour 
'Court dealing with such a matter. Jn the. latter case, the Court in its appellate 
jurisdiction could be regarded as enjoying all the jurisdiction which the LaboUr 
Court enjoyed. [6 A-CJ · 
·' 
3. · Radio Operators Grade III (Naik) had to be considered substantially · 
on the 'iame basis as Naiks and it was because of their special qualifications and 
. of the specialised nature of their duties that they had been ·provided with a special 
pay in addition: Ever since 1975 Radio Operators Grade III (Naik) had been 
selecied only from the rank of Constables on the General Duty Side. The revis-
ed pay·scale of Radio Operators of 1he ·rank of Head ConstabJe·as well as Head 
Constables on General Duty was Rs. 260-350 with a special pay of Rs. 40 to the 
former. As this post was the next immediate higher post above the rank of Naik., 
·it was apparent that there was no justification for giving to the petitioners. Who· 
were junior in rank, the scaJe of pay of Rs. 260-430. (6 D-F] 
4- · The petitioners could not claim to be paid at par with comparable 
government employees on the civil side as-they_ were entitled to certain benefits 
.which were not .available to the latter. [6 G-H; 7 A·Bl 
. 
S. ' The revised p3,y initially paid to the petitioners h~d been con:iputed ill 
error inasmuch as when fixing the pay in- the revised scale the special pay had 
been wrongly taken into account. [7 D-:El 
' 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition

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