G S ANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission, as modified, were made effective from 1. 1. 1986. The pay of the Government employees in the revised pay-scale, as recommended, was to be fixed as per CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "revised Pay Rules" ). The petitioners herein are aggrieved that their pay is not properly fixed. They filed an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act before the Central Administrative tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, but without any success, as vide judgment dated 25. 2. 2004, the said application has been dismissed. By means of the present petition, they assail the decision of the Tribunal.
(2.) ALL the petitioners are serving on Electronic Data Processing (EDP) Post in the Data Processing Division of National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) under the Ministry of Statistics, Government of India. As on 1. 1. 1986, they were holding the post of Data Processing Assistants. They were given a particular pay-scale by the Government on the implementation of 4th Central Pay Commission with which these EDPs were not satisfied. The legal battle went up to the supreme Court and ultimately, as per the directions of the Apex Court, they were held entitled to a better scale of pay, i. e. Rs. 1600-2660. The pay of these petitioners was accordingly fixed by the Government in the aforesaid pay-scale. In fact, it is not even in dispute that the pay is not properly fixed under the revised Pay Rules. The fight is over grant of next increment on the date it becomes due in the pre-revised scale. Whereas the petitioners contend that whenever next increment falls due in the pre-revised pay-scale after 1. 1. 1986, that shall be added. Proviso (1) to Rule 8 of the Revised Pay Rules disallows the grant of such an increment. Therefore, the petitioners want striking down of the said proviso as discriminatory. It is because of this reason, the petitioners had claimed the following reliefs in their OA filed before the central Administrative Tribunal :-
" (1) strike down the proviso 1 to Rule 8 as which disallows the next increment on the date it becomes due in the pre-revised scale as being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (2) Declare that the benefit of Rule 8 (1) should be available to not only those falling under Rule 7 (1) but also those who fall under Rule 7 (1), Note 3, so that the applicants also become entitled to the next increment on the date it falls during the pre-revised scale of pay. (3) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (4) Award costs of the present proceedings to the applicants. "
(3.) THUS, it is not in dispute that if proviso (1) to Rule 8 remains in the Rule book, the petitioners would not be entitled to the next increment, as demanded by them. The question is as to whether this hurdle coming in their way can be removed by striking down the proviso as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.