LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus JAGDISH PANDEY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 979 UNION'OF INDIA & O.RS. V. JAGDISH PANDEY & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 365 of 2007) JULY 8, 2010 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] A B Service law - Disparity in pay scale .,... Tow..er Wagon Drivers in Railways - Claim of running· allowance as. paid to goods train drivers - Granted by High C6uii ;.;.. Competent C Authority withdrawing the higherpayscales granted to 7WDs in comparison to goods train drivers since higher pay scales granted inadvertently - Challenge to - Order by Competent Authority set aside by tribunal as also High Court - On appeal, held: Pay scale is a legitimate right of employee and D except for valid and proper reasons cannot be varied, that too only in accordance with law - On facts, no justifiable reasons existed - Union of India did not place any material before Forum/Courts to show that TWDs and goods train drivers were different and distinct classes and were entitled to receive E different pay scales - It never pleaded essential basis for justifying payment of different pay scales to two categories of drivers-7WDs and goods train drivers - More so, they could not raise vague averments for the first time before this Court, without any supporting data or documents. F Pleadings - When to be raised - Held: Specific pleadings are to be raised before the first forum for adjudication of dispute - They are the basis of the case of respective parties even before appellate/higher Courts - Parties would be bound by such pleadings, subject to right of G : amendment. The respondents are/were working as Tower Wagon Drivers under the Railways. They filed writ petition 979 H 980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A seeking the running allowance. The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Railways paid running allowance to the respondents. Thereafter, the Railways passed an order that they granted higher pay scales to respondents inadvertently and the said scale is withdrawn. The s respondents challenged the order passed by the . Railways. The tribunal allowed the application and set aside the order issued by the Railways. The High Court upheld the order. It held that at all relevant time Tower Wagon Drivers are being treated equivalent to Goods c Train Drivers, thus there is no reason for treating them differently now. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. There is no legal infirmity in the judgment D of the tribunal and the High Court. [Para 12] [992-E] 1.2. The tribunal specifically noticed that after acceptance of Vth Pay Commission Report by the Government, TWDs were given the salary in the pay scale E of Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and in the letter dated 15.4.1993 the concerned authorities noticed the disparity created even between the TWDs i.e. in Sealdah division out of 32 TWDs, 24 were getting pay scale of Rs. 1350- 2200 (unrevised) and remaining 8 were getting the pay scale of Rs. 1320-2040 and it directed a uniform pay scale F of Rs. 1350-2200 should be given to all the TWDs. No material was produced to show as to what were the reasons or material on the basis of which the authorities had decided to discontinue the pay scale of Rs. 1350- 2200 to these respondents. The reasoning and G discussion in the order of the tribunal clearly shows that the action on the face of it was arbitrary. The order of the tribunal was confirmed by the High Court and the appellants made no effort to place anything on record to show that they were different and distinct classes and H were entitled to receive different pay scales. Even in the UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JAGDISH PANDEY & 981 "- ORS. order dated 09.08.2002, the tribunal specifically noticed A that it was not even averred that eligibility criteria for the post of TWDs was different than that for the goods driver and their duties were substantially different. In other words, either before the tribunal or before the High Court, the Union of India never pleaded the essential basis for B justifying payment of different pay scales to two categories of drivers i.e. TWDs on the one hand and goods train drivers on the· other. There has to be a substantial difference in method of recruitment, eligibility, duties and responsibilities before substantial disparity in c scale can be justified. [Para 8] (990-A-F] 1.3. As far as recording of finding of facts is concerned, factual disputes can hardly be raised before this Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.