UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus R. SWAMINATHAN ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 94 · Decided: 12-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
R. SW AMINA THAN ETC. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1997 
B 
[J.S. VERMA, CJ., SUJATA V. MANOHARAND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Fundamental Rule 22(J)(a)(i)-Pay fixation on promotion-Promotee--
C employee--,-Drawing less pay than their juniors due to officiating promotion--
Higher pay fixation on regular promotion-Anomaly-Govt. order for stepping 
up pay on par with juniors-Allowed by Tribunal-Held, difference in pay 
scales is not a result of any anomaly nor result of the application of 
Fundamental Rule 22(J)(a)(i)-Employees not entitled to have their pay 
D stepped up under the Govt. order-Proper norms to be laid down for making 
local officiating promotions. 
The respondents were employees of Department of Posts :md Telegraph 
and Telecommunications. On promotion, the respondents were getting in their 
promotional posts less pay than their juniors who were subsequently promoted. 
E Fixation of pay on promotion to a higher post was governed by Fundamental 
Rule 22(l)(a)(i). The regular promotions from junior posts to higher posts 
were on the basis of all India seniority. However, for filling up posts which 
are short term the Heads of Circle were given powers for making promotio~ 
due to administrative exigencies. The juniors therefore received a higher pay 
F on their regular promotion than the seniors, as their initial pay on regular 
promotion was fixed taking into account the last pay drawn by them while 
they were efficiating in higher post. This resulted in an anomaly and 
Government Order bearing No. F2(78) E.III(A)/66 dated 4.2.1966 have been 
issued for removal of anomaly by stepping up the pay of a senior on promotion 
drawing less pay than his juniors. 
G 
The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the application of the 
respondent-employee claiming stepping up of their pay to the level of their 
juniors from the date of promotion. 
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellants have come up in 
H appeal before this Court. 
94 
U.0.1. v. R. SW AMINA THAN 
95 
The contention of the Union of India was that it was not always possible A 
to convene a meeting of the departmental promotion committee for filling up 
the posts which are short-terms, on an all India basis because of administrative 
problems. To fill up this gap, local officiating promotions are made in the 
interest of work. The juniors therefore have received higher pay on their 
regular promotion than the seniors. 
The contention of the respondent-employees was that local officiating 
promotion within a circle have resulted in their being deprived of a chance to 
officiate in the higher post, if such chance of officiating promotion arises in 
B 
a different circle. It was further contended that since there was All India 
seniority for regular promotions the All India Seniority must prevail even C 
while making local officiating appointments within any circle. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The employees are not entitled to have their pay stepped up 
under the Government Order bearing No. F12(78) E.III(A)-66 dated 4.2.1966 
because the difference in the pay drawn by them and the higher pay drawn by D 
their juniors is not as a result of any anomaly nor is it a result of the 
application of fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(i). [103-D) 
1.2. As per Govt. order stepping up is subject to the conditions: (i) 
both the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the 
posts in which they have been promoted should be identical and in the same E 
cadre; (ii) the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts should be identical; 
and (iii) anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of 
Fundamental Rule 22(1) (a) (i). The difference in the pay of a junior and a 
senior in their case is not a result of the application of fundamental Rule 
22(l)(a)(i). [101-E) 
1.3. The higher pay received by a junior is on account of his earlier 
officiation in the higher post because of local officiating promotions which 
he got in the post. Because of the proviso to Rule 22 he may have earned 
increments in the higher pay scale of the post to which he is promoted on 
account of his past service and also his previous pay in the promotional post 
F 
has been taken into account in fixing his pay on promotion. It is these two G 
factors which have increased the pay of the juniors. This cannot be considered 
as an anomaly requiring the stepping up of the pay of the seniors. [101-F-G] 
1.4. The incr

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