UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus P. JAGDISH AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 220 · Decided: 17-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
P. JAGDISH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 17, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW-PAY FIXATION-Special pay attached to certain 
identified posts in category of Senior Clerks-Additional pay attached to the 
post-Incumbent who oqcupies the post can only claim it. · 
Fundamental Rule-Stepping up of pay-Principles of-Ap-
plicability-Senior officer in higher post drawing lower rate of pay than officers 
in lower grade promoted or appointed subsequently-Pay of senior officer to 
be stepped up to a figure equal to pay fzxed for junior officer. 
D 
Prior to 1.1.1986, 10% of the posts of Senior Clerks were identified 
to be the posts involving arduous nature of work and thos~//r the incum-
bents who were being posted to those identified posts were getting special 
pay of Rs. 35 per months. The respondents, Senior Clerks not working 
against the identified posts of Senior Clerks were promoted as Head 
E Clerks w.e.f. 1.1.1984 the date from which there had been upgradation to 
the posts of Head Clerks and while fixing of the pay in the category of Head 
Clerks, the pay which they were drawing as Senior Clerk was taken into 
account. While the respondents were promoted to the post of Head Clerks, 
their juniors who were posted against the identified posts of Senior Clerks 
getting Rs. 35 as special pay on being promoted as Head Clerks, were 
F getting higher pay than the respondents, though respondents promoted 
prior to their promotion. 
\ 
Respondents approached the Tribunal claiming that their pay 
should be refixed in the cadre of Head Clerks on the notional ~asis that 
G they were drawing Rs. 35 p.m. as special pay in the cadre of Senior Clerk. 
The Tribunal though did not grant the relief as claimed, directed on 
equitable consideration, that the salary of the respondents should be 
stepped up, so that, they would not get less than their juniors in the 
category of Senior Clerks were getting on being promoted to the cadre of 
Head Clerk. This appeal had been filed against the direction of the 
H Tribunal. 
220 
U.O.I. v. P. JAGDISH 
221 
The appellant contended that the special pay of Rs. 35 per month A 
being attached to the specified post in the cadre of Senior Clerk only those 
of the Senior Clerks would get the same who were posted against those 
specified posts and the respqndents having not been posted on those posts, 
they were not entitled to be granted notionally the special pay of Rs. 35 per 
month; that once the respondents were not in fact dra"ing the special pay B 
of Rs. 35 per month on account of the fact that they had not been posted 
against the identified posts of Senior Clerks would not be entitled to get 
their pay fixed in the cadre of Head Clerks by following the principle of 
stepping up solely on the ground that their juniors were getting a higher 
salary. 
c 
The questions raised for consideration were (i) whether the respon· 
dent who had not been posted against the identified posts could even claim 
fixation of their pay with Rs. 35 per month in the, qidre of Senior Clerk 
even on notional basis; (ii) whether the respon:dents could claim for 
stepping up of their pay in the promoted cadre of Jiead Clerks when their D 
juniors who were promoted were fixed up at a higher slab in the cadre of 
Head Clerks taking into account the special pay which they were drawing 
in the lower category of Senior Clerks~ 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
E 
HELD : A special pay of Rs. 35 per month was attached. to certain 
identified posts in the category of Senior Clerks and, therefore, only those 
who would be posted against those identified posts could claim the said 
special pay. The respondents who had l)lready been promoted to the higher 
category of Head Clerks could not claim tRat special pay even on notional F 
basis merely because their juniors in the cadre of Senior Clerks were given 
that special pay on being posted against those identified posts carrying the 
special pay. It was an additional pay attached to the post and any incum· 
bent who occupied the post could only claim the same. The claim of the 
G 
respondents on this score, therefore, was not sustainable in law and the 
Tribunal had rightly rejected the said claim of the respondents. [225-E-G] 
1.2. Under the provisions of Fundamental Rules to remove the 
anamoly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post 
earlier drawing a lower rate. of pay in that post than another Govern
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.