Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1996 DIGILAW 974 (SC)

S. P. Singh v. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi

1996-04-22

G.T.NANAVATI, S.C.AGRAWAL

body1996
ORDER : S.C. Agrawal, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is employed as a Medical Officer in Nehru Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, New Delhi run by the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Delhi Administration"). Initially, he was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 650-1200 which was revised to Rs. 2000-3500 with effect from 1-1-1986. The case of the appellant is that he should have been given the revised scale of Rs. 2200-4000. In support of the said submission, the appellant has placed reliance on the order dated 17-2-1989 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, whereby the pay scales of existing Physicians of Indian systems of medicine and homeopathy working under the Central Government Health Scheme as well as Research Officers of Indian systems of medicine and homeopathy working in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and in its subordinate offices who were earlier in the pay scale of Rs. 650-1200 were given the revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 with effect from 1-1-1986. The appellant submitted a representation to the Secretary (Medical), Delhi Administration for revision of his pay scale in the light of the said order of the Government of India dated 17-2-1989, on 27-3-1989. The said representation of the appellant was forwarded by the Delhi Administration to the Government of India and by letter dated 14-6-1994/15-6-1994, the Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, informed the Joint Secretary (Medical), Delhi Administration that the matter of revision of pay scale of Medical Officer (Homeopathy) working in the Delhi Administration have been referred to the Ministry of Finance and that they had informed that this case had been reconsidered and that it was regretted that the same cannot be agreed to in view of the setting up of a new pay commission. In accordance with the said letter received from the Government of India, the Principal, Nehru Homeopathy Medical College and Hospital, by letter dated 13-7-1994, informed the appellant that the case of revision of his pay has been considered by the Finance Ministry and cannot be agreed to in view of the setting up of a new pay commission. In accordance with the said letter received from the Government of India, the Principal, Nehru Homeopathy Medical College and Hospital, by letter dated 13-7-1994, informed the appellant that the case of revision of his pay has been considered by the Finance Ministry and cannot be agreed to in view of the setting up of a new pay commission. The appellant and Respondent 4 thereupon filed a petition (OA No. 1671 of 1994) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The said application has been dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 9-5-1995. The Tribunal was of the view that there was delay in filing of the petition by the appellant and Respondent 4 and further that the matter was under consideration with the Fifth Pay Commission. The Tribunal has, however, given liberty to the appellant and Respondent 4 to assail the surviving grievance, if any, after the acceptance of the recommendations to be submitted by the Fifth Pay Commission to the Government. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the DO letter dated 17-1-1996 from the Member-Secretary, Fifth Pay Commission to the Secretary (Defence) it is stated and has been clarified that the Pay Commission has no intention to reopen past cases or in making any recommendation with respect to the rectification of anomalies with retrospective effect and that the past cases may be settled by the Administrative Ministries concerned at their level. The learned counsel for the appellant has also invited our attention to the order dated 18-5-1993, passed by the Joint Secretary (Medical), Delhi Administration regarding opening of homeopathic dispensaries (New Scheme) and creation of six posts of Medical Officers in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 NPA. The submission of the learned counsel is that having regard to the fact that other Medical Officers (Homeopathy) in Delhi Administration are being given the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000, there is no justification for not extending the same pay scale to the appellant. The learned counsel has assailed the order rejecting the representation submitted by the appellant in that regard and has urged that merely because the Finance Ministry of the Government of India was not agreeable to the revision in view of the setting up of the Fifth Pay Commission could not be a valid ground for rejecting the said representation. 4. The learned counsel has assailed the order rejecting the representation submitted by the appellant in that regard and has urged that merely because the Finance Ministry of the Government of India was not agreeable to the revision in view of the setting up of the Fifth Pay Commission could not be a valid ground for rejecting the said representation. 4. We find merit in the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Merely because the Fifth Pay Commission has been set up could not be a ground for rejecting the representation submitted by the appellant for his being given the revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 having regard to the order dated 17-2-1989 passed by the Government of India as well as the order dated 18-5-1993 passed by the Delhi Administration. In these circumstances, the order rejecting the representation submitted by the appellant for being given the revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 is set aside and the Delhi Administration is directed to consider the said representation on merits in the light of the order dated 17-2-1989 passed by the Government of India and the order dated 18-5-1993 passed by the Delhi Administration. Since the matter has been pending since long, the said representation should be considered and disposed of within a period of three months. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.