UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus S.D. BANDHOPADHYAY AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 587 · Decided: 19-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
S.D. BANDHOPADHYA Y AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 19, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Pay Scale-Revision of-0.M. issued granting revision of pay scales C 
based on criteria of educational qualification-Respondents granted benefits 
in terms thereof-Ten years later another O.M. issued granting revised pay 
scales, but based on criteria of length of service-Claim by Respondents for 
further revision of pay scale in terms of subsequent O.M.-Maintainability 
of-On facts, held, not maintainable-Contention of Respondents, that in 
view of changed criteria by reason of the subsequent O.M., the same should D 
be applied in their case, is misplaced-Respondents having been given 
benefits in terms of the earlier O.M. could not have been granted further 
benefits i.e. higher scale of pay in terms of the subsequent O.M. 
There was a revision in pay scales of all the three Grades of E 
Draughtsmen in CPWD. An Office Memorandum dated 13-3-1984 was issued 
granting similar revision of pay scales to Draughtsmen in all Govt. Offices. 
The OM was based on the criteria of educational qualification and given 
retrospective operation w.e.f. 1-11-1983. Respondents, draughtsmen employed 
in Ordnance Factories, claimed revision in terms of OM of 1984, though in 
the Ordnance Factories there was no three grade structure for Draughtsmen F 
as prevalent in CPWD. The Tribunal held that the Respondents were at least 
entitled to pay scale of Draughtsmen Grade II. Appeal against that decision 
was dismissed by this Court in Debashis Kar*. 
Another Office Memordandum was issued on 19-10-1994, whereby G 
benefits of revision of pay scales were sought to be conferred upon the 
Draughtsmen. This OM also was given retrospective operation w.e.f. 1-1-1983 
though it was based on the criteria oflength of service. The OM further stated 
that revision of pay scale if effected, future promotions will be made in 
accordance with the normal eligibility criteria. Respondents filed application 
before the Tribunal claiming entitlement to grant of pay scale of Draughtsmen H 
587 
588 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A Grade-I in terms of the OM of 1994. The claim was allowed. 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
whether Respondents having been given the benefits in terms of OM of 1984 
could have been granted further benefits in terms of the OM ol 1994. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Respondents obtained the benefits by reason of the judgment 
of the Tribunal. This Court in Debashis Kar refused to consider the rules 
framed by the Union oflndia in 1989 on the premise that the rules being 
C prospective in nature the same did not take into consideration the scale of 
pay to which Respondents would be entitled prior thereto. The Tribunal no 
doubt used the expression 'at least' while directing revision of scale of pay to 
Respondents at par with Grade II Draughtsmen of CPWD but merely directed 
the Ordnance Factory Board to review 'set up of Draughtsmen' in the said 
organisation in the light of the said memorandums. But, what had not been 
D noticed therein was that prior thereto rules had been framed in 1989. Once 
statutory rules came into force, the terms and conditions of service laid down 
thereby shall govern the field. 1596-G-H; 597-Al 
1.2. Submission by the Respondents, that in view of the changes in 
E criteria by reason of the OM of 1994, the same should be applied in their 
case, is misplaced. The contentions of Respondents had been considered by 
the Tribunal. Evidently, the Respondents could not have been given the entire 
benefit of the OM of 1984. It was in that situation and in particular in absence 
of a clear policy decision adopted by the Union oflndia a direction was issued 
by the Central Administrative Tribunal that they be given the pay scale of 
F Draughtsmen Grade II. It was not adhoc in nature. The observations of the 
Tribunal cannot be taken to mean that the same was subjected to any other 
decision. The OM of 1994 does not take into effect the question of the 
promotion. Whereas the posts of Senior Draughtsmen were to be filled up by 
way of promotion from the incumbents of Draughtsmen Grade II, so far as 
G the Draughtsmen of the Ordnance Factory Board are concerned they were to 
be promoted to the Draughtsmen Grade II. The question must be determined 
on the basis of the position as was obtaining prior to 1989. As Respo

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