Union Of India & Anr vs S. Thakur

respondent, who retired on January 31, 1997 as 2 Assistant Director, Intelligence Bureau, upgraded

scale of Rs. 12000-16500 with effect from January

1, 1996, vide judgment dated January 23, 2001 in

O.A. No. 2185 of 1999, is upheld.

2. The Fifth Central Pay Commission was set up by the

Government of India vide Resolution dated April 9,

1994. The Commission submitted it's Report on

January 30, 1997 relating to structure of

emoluments, allowances, benefits to be paid to the

Central Government employees including Union

Territories, Members of All-India services and

personnel belonging to the Armed forces. Apart

from revising the pay scale of employees at each

stage, the Commission recommended that out of 52

posts of Assistant Director in Intelligence Bureau,

40 posts be upgraded and placed in the pay scale of

Rs.3700-5000 whereas 12 posts be upgraded as

Joint Deputy Director and placed in the pay scale of

Rs.4500-5700. Vide Government order dated

October 16, 1998, 40 posts of Assistant Directors

were placed in the pay scale of Rs.12000-16500 3 corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs.3700-5000

and the remaining 12 posts were placed in the scale

of Rs.14300-18300 corresponding to pre-existing

scale of Rs.4500-5700 and re-designated as Joint

Deputy Directors. It was also mentioned in the

said order that the implementation of the orders

involved restructuring of the Executive cadre and

redistribution of posts and therefore higher scales

would be applicable only prospectively, i.e., from

October 1, 1997. The incumbents, who were

similarly situated, were granted benefit of higher

pay scale with effect from January 1, 1996.

Therefore, the respondent who retired from service

as Assistant Director (Executive) on January 31,

1997 gave a representation that the benefit of

upgraded scale be extended to him from January 1,

1996. The said representation was rejected on July

13, 1999. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed

original application No. 2185 of 1999 before the

Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench

New Delhi with a prayer to direct the appellants to 4 grant benefit of upgraded scale to him with effect

from January 1, 1996.

3. The Tribunal sought a clarification from the Learned

Counsel of the appellants as to whether any

restructuring of cadre and redistribution of posts

was actually involved insofar as Assistant Directors

were concerned. The Tribunal was informed that no

such restructuring of cadre and redistribution of

posts were involved as far as those 40 posts were

concerned and changes were required to be made

only in regard to the remaining 12 posts which were

earmarked for upgradation. Under the

circumstances the Tribunal found that Assistant

Directors (Executive) in the group of 40 could have

been placed in the higher grade with effect from

January 1, 1996 itself and delaying the benefit of

revision of pay scale till October 1, 1997 was

unreasonable. Therefore, by Judgment dated

January 23, 2001, the Tribunal directed the

appellants to grant the upgraded scale of Rs.12000- 5 16500 to the respondent with effect from January 1,

1996.

4. Feeling aggrieved the appellant invoked extra

ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court by filing CWP

No. 216 of 2001. The High Court by Judgment

dated January 11, 2002 has dismissed the petition

giving rise to the instant appeal.

5. This Court has heard the Learned Counsel of the

parties at length and considered the documents

forming part of the appeal.

6. The plea that as restructuring of cadre and

redistribution of posts was involved in so far as the

Assistant Directors were concerned and therefore

the policy decision taken by the State Government

to give benefit of upgraded scale to an Assistant

Director (Executive) with effect from October 01,

1997 should not have been interfered with by the

Tribunal and by the High Court is devoid of merits.

There is no dispute nor there can be any, to the

principle that fixation of pay and date from which 6 the benefit of revised pay scale would be admissible

is the function of the Executive and the scope of

judicial review of such an administrative decision is

very limited. However, it is equally well-settled that

the Courts would interfere with the administrative

decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity

as well as the date from which the revised pay

scales would be made applicable if it is found that

such a decision is unreasonable, unjust and

prejudicial to a section of employees.

7. As observed earlier, no restructuring of cadre and

redistribution of posts in regard to 40 posts of

Assistant Directors was involved at all so as to

justify the stand of the appellants to extend the

benefits of revised pay scales of Assistant Directors

with effect from January 1, 1997. No other reason

could be advanced by the appellants to justify their

stand that the Assistant Directors were entitled to

benefit of revised pay scale with effect from January

1, 1997. As the appellants were not required to

undertake exercise of restructuring of cadre nor was 7 it necessary to amend the recruitment Rules, the

Assistant Directors forming part of the group of 40

to which the respondent belonged could not have

been denied the benefit of revision of pay scale with

effect from January 1, 1996, which benefit was

awarded to other similarly situated employees with

effect from January 1, 1996. As the decision to give

benefit of revision of pay scale to the Assistant

Directors with effect from October 1, 1997 was

found to be unreasonable, unjust, arbitrary and

prejudicial to the section of the employees, the

Tribunal directed the appellants to grant benefit of

revision of pay scale to the respondent with effect

from January 1, 1996. The said decision was not

found to be erroneous or illegal at all and therefore

the High Court was justified in not interfering with

the same while exercising powers under Article 226

of the Constitution.

8. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8

............................J. [R.V. Raveendran]

............................J. [J.M. Panchal] New Delhi;

October 17, 2008.