Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Administration), Bangalore vs V.K. Gururaj and Others
- SCC(1996) 7 SCC 275
- Neutral1996 INSC 113
- SCR[1996] 1 SCR 841
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Special pay granted to a limited percentage of posts (10% of UDC positions) for discharge of duties of an onerous or complex nature is personal to the holder of that post only so long as he or she actually discharges those special duties, and does not accrue to other UDCs in the same grade merely by reason of seniority or the fact that juniors holding those special posts receive higher pay. The absence of an appeal in one case does not preclude the application of the correct legal principle in subsequent similar cases, and the failure to file such an appeal does not estop the authority from enforcing the proper rule in other matters.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. The Government in O.M. No. F7(52) E III/78, dated May 5, 1979 have stated that special grant of pay of No. 35 per month to the Upper Division Clerks in the non-secretariat administrative offices was provided. Out of the UDCs carrying the scale of No. 330-560, 10% of the posts were earmarked with special grant of pay of No. 35 in the secretariat and other places and they were directed to handle cases of complex nature involving deep study and competence. For dealing with such cases certain officers have been promoted to that 10% posts specified among the UDCs in the secretariat as well as non-secretariat administrative officers. They were being paid @ No. 35 per month as compensation for discharge of special duties. The respondents were not actually discharging those duties but being UDCs they claimed special pay of No. 35. The Tribunal in the impugned order following its earlier decision dated 9.10.1991 made in O.A. 394/90 allowed the petition and directed payment. We have directed the counsel to find out whether any appeal has been filed against the said order. It would appear that no appeal has been filed against the said order. However, it being a question of law and since the matter is of perennial problem applicable to several places, we are of the considered view that the failure to file an appeal in one case does not have the effect of following in all other cases. It is seen that payment of No. 35 per month to UDCs discharging special duties of onerous nature, is personal pay so long as they discharge the same. Therefore, other UDCs who do not perform the special duties, though seniors, do not ipso facto get the same pay on the posit of equal pay due to juniors getting higher pay. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the Tribunal was wholly incorrect in directing payment to all the persons who did not discharge such duties assigned to the 10% special posts of UDCs carrying special pay of No. 35 per month.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free