Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1996 DIGILAW 574 (SC)

S. K. Sood v. Union of India

1996-02-29

B.L.HANSARIA, G.N.RAY

body1996
ORDER : G.N. Ray, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10820 of 1995 is directed against the order dated 5-8-1995 passed by the Single Bench, Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 198 of 1974. The other appeal is directed against the order dated 24-11-1994 in LPA No. 11 of 1985 by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The appellant Shri S.K. Sood had contended before the High Court that he was appointed as a Private Secretary to the Director of the Institute of Advanced Study at Shimla. At the time of appointment, he was given the scale of pay which was then admissible to the Private Secretary to the Secretaries or the Additional Secretaries to the Government of India. The appellant's case is that the Institute had decided as noted in the bye-law of the Institute that whenever there will be change of the conditions of service of the employees of the Central Government "in regard to matters such as TA leave, increments, pay etc." the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules framed by the Government of India and such further orders and rules framed by the Government of India from time to time would apply mutatis mutandis to the officers of the Society. The appellant's contention is that in 1969 there had been revision of pay scale of the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries and Additional Secretaries of the Government of India. But unfortunately the effect of such revision had not been given to the appellant although he was entitled to such revision. Subsequently however the pay scales of the appellant have been revised according to the revisions made on the basis of recommendations by the Central Government Pay Commissions. The appellant has contended that if the scale of pay of the appellant had been revised in 1969 on a par with the scale of pay of the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries and Additional Secretaries of the Central Government who had been given the grade of 350-900, the appellant would have got equal scale of pay in terms of the upward revisions of the pay scales of the Private Secretary to the Secretary on the basis of recommendations of the subsequent Pay Commissions. 4. 4. Such contention, however, has been disputed by the respondents and it was contended that since the Private Secretary to the Director of the Indian Institute of Advanced Study is entitled to the scale of pay admissible to the Private Secretaries of the Directors in the Central Government service, the appellant's scales of pay have been revised whenever on the basis of the recommendations of the Central Pay Commissions' scales of pay of the Private Secretaries of the Directors have been revised. It has also been contended by the respondents that it is not correct to contend that only because at the time of initial appointment of the appellant in the Institute, a particular scale of pay was given which then corresponded to the scale of pay of the Private Secretary to the Secretaries and Additional Secretaries of the Central Government that the appellant was equated with Private Secretary of the Secretaries and Additional Secretaries of the Central Government so that he would automatically get the benefit of change in the pay scale of such Private Secretaries. Hence, revision of the pay scale of the appellant whenever there has been any change in the scale of pay of the Private Secretary to the Directors in the Central Government, has been justly made and no exception should be taken in not giving the benefit of pay scale of the Private Secretary to the Secretaries and the Additional Secretaries. 5. We have been taken through the materials on record, on perusal of which it appears to us that the appellant was given the scale of pay at the time of initial appointment in the Institute which was admissible to the Private Secretary to the Secretaries and Additional Secretaries of the Central Government and not the scale admissible to the Private Secretary to the Directors in the Central Government service. Hence, the appellant was entitled to get the benefit of the same scale of pay as given to the Private Secretary to the Secretary or Additional Secretary of the Central Government. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of upward revision of scale of pay of the Private Secretary to the Secretary and Additional Secretary to the Central Government as effected in 1969 and also subsequent revisions of the scale of such Private Secretaries. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of upward revision of scale of pay of the Private Secretary to the Secretary and Additional Secretary to the Central Government as effected in 1969 and also subsequent revisions of the scale of such Private Secretaries. In the facts of the case, such scale of pay may be treated as the personal pay of the appellant without conferring such scale of Private Secretary to the Director of the Institute on other incumbent if it is decided that the Private Secretary of the Director of the Institute should be equated with the Private Secretary of Directors in the Central Government service. We have given this direction to give the appellant the same scale as admissible to the Private Secretary to the Secretary and Additional Secretary because the pay scale of 350-650 since given to the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries and Additional Secretaries of the Central Government was sanctioned to the appellant when he was initially appointed in the Institute without any reservation. It has been submitted by the appellant before us that in 1985 he was promoted to the post of Estate Officer and his pay in the said post should be properly determined on the basis of refixation of his scale of pay in terms of this order. Such exercise need not be taken by us for the disposal of this appeal. We make it clear that it will be open to the appellant to claim for appropriate fitment in the scale of Estate Officer on the date of his promotion in conformity with the revised scale of pay as per this order. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. Interlocutory application if any, also stands disposed of. 6. We may add here that we have not considered the grievances of the appellant against the order of compulsory retirement from service since such order of compulsory retirement has been challenged in a writ petition before the Himachal Pradesh High Court and such writ petition is pending adjudication.