- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The first question raised on behalf of the appellants in all these appeals is whether the special pay of Rs. 35 should be considered as a part of the pay of the employees concerned for adjustment of their pay in the pay scale of the post of the Senior Accountant when they are appointed to that post. The letter dated 3/1/1981 from the Director General of Posts andtelegraphs bearing No. 6-7/79-PAP read with Circular No. 8.7. (52s. 123/78 of 5/5/1979 makes it clear that the special pay of Rs. 35 was granted to 10. 00 per cent of the posts of Junior Accountants for discharging more complex and important nature of work. This means that 10. 00 per cent of the Junior Accountants' posts were entitled to this higher or special pay and the appointees to the posts carried the same till they were appointed to the next promotional post of the Senior Accountant. The special pay was not granted to them in lieu of promotion for having been stagnated in the lower post or grade as contended on behalf of the appellant-Union of India. It was a kind of an intermediate level of post/grade. Hence when the employees carrying the special pay were thereafter promoted to the next higher post of the Senior Accountant, their salary had to be fixed according to FR 22-C. The view taken by the tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to be erroneous.
(3.) As regards the contention that even those Junior Accountants who were not getting special pay of Rs. 35 per month have been given the benefit of the said rule, when they were promoted to the post of the Senior Accountant, in answer to our query whether the persons concerned were not overlooked while granting special pay to their juniors, Mr. Mahajan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Union of India sought time to get the information. We declined the request because, it was not disputed before the tribunal. Hence, the tribunal, according to us, rightly proceeded on the footing that the persons concerned were overlooked. It is not disputed that the 10. 00 per cent of the posts earmarked for special pay had to be filled in on the basis of the rule of seniority-cum-merit and there is nothing on record to show that the individuals concerned were overlooked on account of their lack of merit. In other words, the injustice done to them while giving the said pay to their juniors, has been rectified by the tribunal by the impugned order.;