STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus DR. OM PRAKASH SINGH

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 53 · Decided: 03-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
DR. OM PRAKASH SINGH 
SEPTEMBER 3, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Service Law-Revised pay scale-Entitlement to-Services of Respondent 
terminated on closure of State Horticulture Corporation in I 990--Government 
order provided for appointment of retrenched employees of the Corporation, 
with protection of the last pay drawn-Respondent was subsequently given 
appointment in the State Jail Services in 1991 and his pay scale fixed with 
a view to protect his pay-He was granted various benefits as available in 
law, including benefit of pay enhancements, after such appointment-Jn 
1998, Respondent made representation stating that he should be covered by 
the revised pay scale w.ef !. I. 1986 in the Horticultural Corporation and 
that pursuant to decision of the State Government his last pay should be 
protected in that scale-Revised pay scales prescribed but not adopted-
Representation rejected by State Government-Tribunal holding that the last 
pay protection would be in the revised scale-Affirmed by High Court-On 
appeal, held : mere prescription of a revised scale of pay is really of no 
consequence unless adopted by the employer-Revised scale of pay was not 
adopted by the time the Corporation was closed-Hence claim of Respondent 
for revised scale of pay not tenable. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Respondent was appointed in the U.P. State Horticultural Produce 
Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd. (HORTICO). The said 
Corporation was closed in 1990. At the time of closure, Respondent was 
drawing pay of Rs. 1060 in the pay scale of Rs. 900-1770. In 1991 
Government issued order providing for appointment of retrenched 
employees of HORTICO on posts available for direct employment and 
outside the purview ofU.P. Public Service Commission as a compassionate 
measure. It also provided that the last pay drawn by concerned employees 
G 
of HORTICO would be protected. Respondent was given temporary 
appointment and posted as Deputy Jailor in the U.P. Jail Services. He 
was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. By an order passed in 1997 
the Government fixed his pay at Rs. 2250 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-
2300 with a view to protect his pay. In 1998 Respondent made a 
H 
53 
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
representation stating that he should be covered by the revised pay scale 
of Rs. 2200-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 in HORTICO and pursuant to the 
decision of the State Government his last pay should be protected in 
that scale. The representation was rejected by the State Government on 
the ground that the rrevised pay scale was not adopted by HORTICO 
B 
and that in any event, HORTICO having been closed, the question of 
accepting the Respondent's claim did not arise. 
Respondent filed writ petition before High Court which dismissed 
the same on the ground that there was alternative remedy provided 
before the State Public Service Tribunal Claim Petition was filed by 
C 
Respondent before Tribunal which held that the last pay protection 
would be in the revised scale, that Respondent was being given Rs. 1060 
which was in the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 515-860 and, therefore, 
illegal. It was held that the pay protection as envisaged by the 
Government order was not done. The State of U.P. and its functionaries 
D 
E 
F 
G 
filed a writ petition before High Court which by the impugned order 
dismissed the same. It was held that the s:ale of Rs •. 900-1770 stood 
revised and Respondent No. 2 became entitled for the revision of the 
pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986, that his claim for the revision of pay 
scale could not be defeated simply because actual revision of pay scale 
was not done for couple of years and in the meantime closure of the 
Corporation was declared. 
In appeal before this Court, the State of U.P. calls in question 
legality of judgment rendered by Hihg Court affirming the order passed 
by the State Public Service Tribunal. Appellants submitted that when 
the .revised pay scale was not adopted by HORTICO, the question of 
extending benefits of the revised pay scale did not arise; that the basic 
pay of Rs. 1060 as per the pay scale operative at the time of closure of 
the Corporation was given to Respondent; that. by a hypothetical 
conclusion the Tribunal came to hold that the same was relatable to the 
revised pay scale of Rs. 515-860 and that the High Court's reasoning 
that closure of the Corporation was irrelevant cannot be maintained 

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