- (1.) THE appellant was promoted as a lineman, a group 'c' post, in the lakshadweep Electricity department, on 2. 2. 1985. The pay scale of lineman was initially Rs. 85-2-95-3-110 which was revised to Rs. 210-4-226-EB-4-250-EB-5-290. The pay scale was further revised to Rs. 800-15-1010-EB-20-1150 as per Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 (for short 'revised Pay Rules' ). The appellant gave a representation dated 1. 10. 1994 requesting a higher pay scale. He contended that as the post of lineman was classified as a group C post, he should be given the benefit of the minimum of the pay scales prescribed for group 'c' posts under the Revised Pay rules, that is Rs. 825-15-900-EB-20-1200.
(2.) BY Office Memorandum dated 9. 8. 1995 the respondent rejected the representation of appellant for grant of the higher pay scale of Rs. 825-1200. The said memorandum stated that though the post of lineman was a group 'c' post, the revised pay scale applicable to the said post was that which corresponded to pre-revision pay-scale of Rs. 210-290 drawn by linemen and therefore appellant was entitled only to the revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1150. It was also stated that the duties and responsibilities of linemen in the electricity Department differed substantially from linemen in other departments (that is Linemen/wireman in telecommunications, Postmen/ mailguards in Postal department etc.); that the Fourth Pay Commission had recommended the higher pay scale of Rs. 825-15-900-EB-20-1200 only for linemen and wiremen in the Telecommunication Department on the specific condition that their recruitment qualifications should be raised; and that the revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1150 given to the appellant was therefore in accordance with the fourth pay commission's recommendations. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Central administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Tribunal allowed the application by order dated 28. 6. 1997 and quashed the O. M. dated 9. 8. 1995. The Tribunal held that as the appellant was in a group 'c' post, he was entitled to the minimum pay scale applicable to group 'c' posts, after the revision of pay scales; that under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986, the pay scale of Rs. 800-1150 was a group 'd' pay scale and the lowest pay scale applicable to group 'c' posts was Rs. 825-1200; and that therefore the appellant was entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 825-1200 from 1. 1. 1986 with all consequential benefits. The respondents challenged the said order in a writ petition (O. P. No. 13965/1998) before the High Court of kerala. The High Court allowed the writ petition by order dated 27. 1. 2000 following the decision of this Court in Union of India v. P V Hariharan [1997 (3) SCC 568]. The High Court held that as the pay scale applicable to the appellant before the pay revision was Rs. 210-290, he was entitled only to the corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1150 under the Revised pay Rules, and that he was not entitled to a higher pay scale. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave. The only question that therefore arises for our consideration is whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of higher pay scale of Rs. 825-1200 as he was holding a Group 'c' post. In Hariharan (supra), this Court considered a similar claim by Tool room Assistants in the Fisheries department, whose pay scale was initially rs. 85-128, revised to Rs. 210-290. After the Fourth Pay Commission recommendations, they were given the revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1150. The Tribunal held that as the post held by them was included in Group 'c', they were entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs. 1150-2900. Reversing the said decision, this Court held: "we are unable to appreciate the reasoning or approach of the Tribunal. The pay scale of Tool Room Assistant in IFP is Rs. 800-1150. . . . . Assuming that the said post was mentioned under Group C, it may be - or may not be - an error. What is material is that the classification cannot result in change of pay scale from Rs. 800-1150 to Rs. 1150-2900. This is simply unimaginable. Pay scales are what are prescribed for each post by the Government which is very often done on the basis of recommendations of a Pay Commission or a similar expert body. Classification of posts has nothing to do with fixation of pay scales; it only classifies posts into several groups based upon the pay scales already fixed. Classification and prescribing pay scales for several posts are two different and distinct functions. The Tribunal's order is, in our opinion, wholly unsustainable in law. " (Emphasis supplied)
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that if the ratio of Hariharan is applied, the appellant's claim is liable to be rejected. But he contended that the decision in Hariharan should be considered as having been rendered per incurium, as it ignores Rule 5 of the Revised Pay Rules. Relying on the decisions of this Court in Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M. P. [2004 (7) SCC 558] and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra [2005 (2) SCC 673], he submitted that a decision rendered per incurium is not a binding precedent. According to the appellant, having regard to Rule 5 of the Revised Pay Rules, the revision of pay of a government servant should be with reference to the class of post held by him and not with reference to the pay scale earlier applicable to him. He therefore contended that as the appellant held a Group 'c' post, the pay scale applicable to Group 'c' government servants should be extended to him. The principles enunciated in Hariharan is that 'classification of posts has nothing to do with fixation of pay scales" and "classification and prescribing pay scales for different posts are two different and distinct functions". These are well settled principles of service jurisprudence. The question therefore is whether Rule 5 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 carves out any exception to the said general principles of service law, or lays down a different principle, and if so whether Rule 5 had been wrongly ignored.;