VIJENDER JAIN, J. - (1.) This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Tribunal insofar as it allowed the OA of the respondent to grant the benefit of the Fifth Pay Commission for the higher scale on the basis of the arbitration award, from 1st of January, 1996.
(2.) Mr.Bhardwaj learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that this could not have been done in view of the order dated 14th August, 2003, which is to the following effect:- " 3. Now the issue of payment of benefits of higher scale of Rs.5600-200-10500 to these 32 in all Circle Office Superintendents Gr.1 effective from 1.1.96 was under examination in consultation with the M/o UD&PA and M/o Finance & Co.Affairs. It has been advised by the M/o Finance & Co.Affairs that higher pay scale of Rs.6500- 200-10500 could actually be extended to the concerned officials only with prospective effect and not retrospectively from 1.1.96 either on notional or on actual basis. 4. The competent authority in the CPWD had decided to implement advice given by the M/o Finance. Accordingly, higher pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 could actually extend to 20 C.O.Ss upgraded from C.O.S. Gr.II to Gr.I vide Office Order No.165 of 1999 dated 1st September, 1999 from the date they took over the charge of post of C.O.S.Gr.I. Similarly, higher pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 could actually be extended to 12 C.O.Ss. upgraded from C.O.S. Gr.II to Gr.I vide Office Order No.2.7.2000-ECIV(C) Vol II dated 27th June, 2002 from the date they took over the charge of post of C.O.S.Gr.I."
(3.) In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on State of Rajasthan and Anr.vs. Gopaldas 1995 Vol.II SCC 396 and has cited para 7 of the judgment, which reads as under:- " The Rules providing for the revised pay scales were made by the State Government as a result of the recommendation of the Pay Commission which was headed by Mr.B.P.Beri, a former Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. In the process of consideration of the recommendations of the Pay Commission and its implementation, the likelihood of various anomalies and omissions cannot be ruled out. An anomalies committee is normally appointed to straighten the discrepancies and deal with the omissions which might come to the notice of the Government after the initial process of pay revision. This was precisely what was done by the State of Rajasthan by issuing the fourteen notifications relating to different departments where under the revised pay scales, which could not be included under the Rules, were provided and enforced. So far as the notification dated 23.1.1985 relating to the UDCs of subordinate offices is concerned, it was not with a view to remove any anomaly or to make any provision for a category which was left out of the Rules. It was a notification issued as a result of the acceptance of the demand of the UDCs of the subordinate offices for grant of higher pay scale which was given to their counterparts in the Secretariat. The High Court failed to appreciate that the factual basis for issuing the notification dated 23.1.1985 and the fourteen notifications relied upon by the High Court were entirely different. No fault could be found with the notification dated 23.1.1985 and the State Government was justified in granting revised S-10 to the respondent and other UDCs of subordinate offices with effect from 1.2.1985." Mr.Bhardwaj has also contended that on the basis of the original award the total number of posts of Office Supdtts. in the revised pay scale was 20% and not 40%.;