Dr. P.N. Puri & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors
- SCC(1996) 7 SCC 493
- Neutral1996 INSC 143
- SCR[1996] 1 SCR 1028
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
When an anomaly committee, after being referred a question regarding the appropriate pay scale for certain categories of employees, recommends both the scale and the date from which it should be effective, and the government accepts and implements that recommendation, the fixing of that recommended date is not arbitrary and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, even if the employees had performed the same duties at an earlier time without receiving the same pay. The date so fixed by a properly constituted committee and accepted by government cannot be said to have been picked arbitrarily; it is the product of reasoned deliberation by the competent authority.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
O R D E R The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court for direction to pay the equal pay on par with Medical Officer at Rs.2200-4000/-. There was a long controversy regarding the entitlement of the petitioners and their companions for the said scale of pay. Ultimately, it was referred to the Anamoly Committee which had decided in his proceedings dated 1.1.1995 accepting the new pay scales of different posts in the Urban Local bodies, namely, the persons like the petitioners would be paid the scale of pay at Rs.2200-4000/- and recommended to upgrade the said scale from November 7, 1994 and to pay the scales of pay from that date. The Government has accepted the above recommendation and issued orders on February 16, 1995. Calling that order in question, the petitioners have filed the writ petition seeking payment of arrears from 1986.
Initially, direction were given by the Court to consider why the petitioners were not being paid w.e.f. 1.1.1986. After consideration again, the respondent filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances. Undoubtedly, one of the circumstances stated was that previously the petitioners were unequals and were not being paid the same pay and, therefore, they were not entitled to the same scale of pay. The Division bench of the High Court dismissed the petition by order dated September 21, 1995.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the reason given by the respondents is not relevant since the Anamoly Committee recommended that they are performing the same duties on par with the Medical Officers. Therefore, the High Court ought to have granted them the scale of pay from 1986. As stated earlier, reasons given in the counter-affidavit may not be correct reasons but the Anamoly Committee had recommended for payment of same scale of pay to the persons like the petitioners w.e.f. November 7, 1994. It is well settled law that fixing a date is not arbitrary violating Article 14. It is settled law that the authorities cannot pick up from their hat and fix a date. The question, therefore, arises for decision is:
whether the date fixed is arbitrary? The question was referred to the Anamoly Committee to advise the Government as to the fixation of the scale of pay to which persons like the petitioners would be entitled to. The Committee had gone into the question and recommended the scale of pay of Rs.2200-4000/- to the persons like the petitioners and also recommended to give effect from the date on which they had decided, namely November 7, 1994. The Government having accepted the same and given effect from the date. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that fixation of date is arbitrary violating Article 14.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
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