STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus VIJAY SHANKAR DUBEY

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 984 · Decided: 19-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
v.
VIJAY SHANKAR DUBEY
(Civil Appeal No. 1757 of 2020)
MARCH 19, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Service Law:
Pay Scale – Claim for benefit of higher pay-scale –
Entitlement – Superannuation of employee on 31.1.1997 who was
holding post of Joint Director, Prosecution – On recommendation
of Fifth Pay Commission, enhanced pay scale granted w.e.f.
1.1.1996 and accordingly pension revised – By order dated
2.2.2007 a Committee considering the anomalies in the Fifth Pay
Commission further upgraded the pay w.e.f. 1.4.2001 –
Representation of employee claiming revision of pension on the
basis of order dated 2.2.2007 – Employer denied the benefit – Writ
petition claiming revised pension on the basis of enhanced pay
scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 – Allowed by High Court – Appeal to Supreme
Court – Held: Analogy Committee amended the pay scale on the
analogy in the CBI – When a benefit is extended to a category of
employees for the first time, State can fix a rational cut-off date –
It was not obligatory for the State to extend the benefit of such
analogy w.e.f. 1.1.1996 i.e. the date of recommendations of Fifth
Pay Commission – The employee was not covered by order dated
2.2.2007.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The respondent was extended the benefit of
Fifth Pay Commission Report from 01.01.1996 and his pension
was thus revised accordingly. The State Government accepted
the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission vide Government
order dated 23.12.1997 and decided to revise the pay scale from
01.01.1996. [Para 11] [988-H; 989-A]
2. The Government order dated 02.02.2007 had enclosure
in tabular form having columns- Designation, General Revised
   [2020] 4 S.C.R. 984
984
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
985
Pay Scale with effect from 01.01.1996, Amended Pay Scale with
effect from 01.04.2001 and Recommendation. The enclosure
indicates that pay scales of all the officers of Prosecution
Department were not amended, amendments were made only for
the Senior Prosecution Officer (Senior Scale)/Deputy Director
Prosecution and Joint Director (Law)/Joint Director
(Prosecution) with effect from 01.04.2001. [Paras 12 & 13] [990-
A; 991-A]
3. The cut off date, 01.04.2001 for amendment of pay scale
of the post of Joint Director, Prosecution on the basis of the
recommendation of the Committee of the Chief Secretary was a
conscious decision, the amendment in the pay scale was made
following the analogy in the CBI organisation of the Center.
When a benefit for the first time is extended to a category of
employees, the State can always fix a rational cut off date and it
was not obligatory for the State to extend the benefit of analogy
of the CBI organisation of the Center with effect from
01.01.1996 which was the date of the recommendations of the
Fifth Pay Commission. The respondent being not covered by the
Government order dated 02.02.2007 was rightly informed that
he was not entitled for the benefit of amendment in the pay scale
he having already retired on 31.01.1997. [Para 19] [993-H; 994-
A-B]
Purshottam Lal and Others v. Union of India and
Another (1973) 1 SCC 651 – distinguished.
Case Law Reference
(1973) 1 SCC 651
distinguished
Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1757
of 2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2017 of the High
Court of  Judicature of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ
A. No.18687 of 2013
V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv., Ankur Prakash, Adv. for the Appellants.
P.N. Misra, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ms. Saroj Tripathi, Advs. for
the Respondent.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v.
VIJAY SHANKAR DUBEY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and others
challenging the judgment of Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court, Lucknow Bench dated 01.11.2017 by which writ petition filed
by the respondent seeking the benefit of higher pay scale with effect
from 01.01.1996 has been allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case for deciding this appeal are:
The respondent was initially appointed as Assistant Public Officer
on 11.02.1963. On 12.06.1964 the respondent was promoted as Joint
Director, Prosecution, Class I post. The respondent attained the age of
superannuation on 31.01.1997. At the time of retirement he was in the
pay scale of Rs.3700-5000 as per Fourth Pay Commission Report. On
the recommen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.