LexUNION OF INDIA versus M. SURYANARAYANA RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA v. M. SURYANARAYANA RAO AUGUST 7, 1998 B [M. SRINIVASAN ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] Service Law : Pay-Stepping up of-Entitlement to---Junior given ad hoc promotion C on long-term basis within the circle to which he belonged whereas senior who belonged to a different circle was neither considered nor offered such ad hoc promotion-Therefore, Junior drew higher pay than the senior did- Entitlement of stepping up of senior's pay on par with junior's pay-Held, Law laid down in R. Swaminathan's case [1997]7 SCC 690 did not make a distinction between ad hoc promotion for short-term and long-term while D deciding stepping up of senior's pay under such circumstances-Hence, stepping up of pay not admissible to senior even if junior is given ad hoc promotion on long-term basis-Contention that R. Swminathan's case requires reconsideration, rejected-Fundamental Rule 220) The respondent's junior was given ad hoc promotion on a long-term E basis within the circle to which he belonged whereas the respondent who belonged to a different circle was neither considered for such ad hoc promotion nor was he offered the same. As a result the junior drew higher pay than the respondent did. Being aggrieved the respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for stepping up of his F pay on par with his junior, which was allowed. Hence this appeal. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that according to the law .r laid down in R. Swaminathan 's case the principle of stepping up of pay would not apply in a case where a junior was given ad hoc promotion earlier as a result of which he drew higher pay than the senior. G On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the aforesaid case would not apply in the present case as the Bench had considered only a short- term ad hoc promotion of the junior and not a long-term ad hoc promotion and, therefore, the decision in R. Swaminathan 's case required re- consideration. H Allowing the appeal, this Court 1060 - h_ I ,. U.0.1. v. M. SURYANARAYANA RAO [SRINIVASAN,J.] 1061 HELD : I. It is clear from the judgment in R. Swaminathan 's case that A the question of stepping up of pay did J!Ot depend upon the fact that the promotion was short-term ad hoc promotion or long-term ad hoc promotion. Hence, R. Swaminathan 's does not require re-consideration. Ad hoc promotions are made within the circles where vacancies arose and the respondent who was working in a different circle could not have been B considered for such ad hoc promotion or offered the same. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to stepping up of his pay on par with his junior's pay even if the junior is promoted on a long-term basis. (1065-B-C] Union of India v. R. Swaminathan, (1997) 7 SCC 690, followed. T. Atchutaramiah v. Regional Director, ES! Corporation, (1992) 21 ATC (Hyd), referred to. Union of India v. P. Jagdish, [1997) 3 SCC 176, held inapplicable. c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3752 of D 1998. From the Judgment and Order dated 5 .3 .97 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in 0.A. No. 913of1996. P.P Malhotra, A.K. Sharma, Ms. Anubha Jain and C.V.S. Rao for the E Appellants. J. Ramamurthy, L.K. Pandey and S. Nanda Kumar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SRINIVASAN, J. Leave granted. F The respondent herein applied before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad for quashing an order of the Government rejecting his representation for stepping up his pay to be on par with the pay of his juniors N.S. Shah and P. Panjiara who were promoted to the cadre of Telegraph Traffic G Service Group 'B'. The grievance of the respondent was that though he was promoted earlier and he was senior to the two persons mentioned above his pay was fixed at a lesser scale, namely, Rs. 2000-3500 whereas the pay of the said persons was fixed on a higher scale. 2. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent and held H 1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R. A that he is entitled to get his pay stepped up to be on par with that of P. Panjiara who was his junior. As regards Shah, the Tribunal held that the respondent had not made a representation to the Government and therefore, he could not seek stepping of his pay on par with Shah. However, the respondent is satisfied with the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has limited the relief of stepping up fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.