Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 785 (MP)

Hari Ram Shehar v. State of M. P.

2007-07-24

A.K.GOHIL, SANJAY YADAV

body2007
JUDGMENT Gohil, J. -- 1. The writ appeal is filed under section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, against the order dated 15.10.2004, passed in Writ Petition No. 3088/03, whereby the learned Writ Court dismissed the petition of the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was promoted in the post of Statistical Officer in the Veterinary Department, Bhopal on 30.4.1978. The pay-scale of the post of Statistical Officer initially was Rs. 450-900/-. Thereafter, after revision of the pay-scale under the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1990"), the pay-scale of the appellant was revised and accordingly fixed at Rs. 2200-4000/-. Thereafter a dispute arose as to whether the appellant's pay-scale should be revised to Rs. 2200-4000/- or it would be the pay-scale of 2000-3500/-. The matter was referred to the Finance Department. Finance Department vide letter dated 27th August, 1990considering the entry No. 7 of Schedule II appended to Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 (Annexure A-2) held that the employees whose existing pay-scale was Rs. 1820-3300/- on revision of pay he will be fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- and note appended to entry No.7 of Schedule II has also to be followed. On the basis of the aforesaid opinion given by the Finance Department vide letter dated 27th August, 1990 the pay-scale of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 2000-3500/- and accordingly his pay was fixed. He challenged the aforesaid order before the writ Court. Learned writ Court considering the note appended to Item No.7 of Schedule II in Annexure A-2 of the Rules, 1990 held that since the benefit of pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- was payable to the employees holding Class II (Gazetted) post and whose recruitment was made directly by Public Service Commission, the said pay-scale was wrongly given to the petitioner, hence, the pay-scale was rightly reduced to Rs. 2000-3500/-, against which the appellant has filed this writ appeal. 3. We have heard Shri S.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Government Advocate for respondents/ State at length and perused the record. 4. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the opinion given by the Finance Department is not binding on the appellant. 3. We have heard Shri S.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Government Advocate for respondents/ State at length and perused the record. 4. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the opinion given by the Finance Department is not binding on the appellant. The opinion is with regard to the Entry No.7 of Schedule II of Annexure A-2 of the Rules, 1990 and his case would fall under the Entry No.6 of Schedule II of Annexure A-2, according to which the pay-scale of the post of Statistical Officer will be the same as would be applicable to post holding by the officers of the Directorate of Economics and Statistics. The pay-scale of Assistant Director/District Statistical Officer (Technical) is Rs. 2200-4000/- and he also submitted that this position is clear from the definition of "existing pay-scale" and "revised pay scale" mentioned in the Rule, 1990. On the contrary, Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Government Advocate argued and supported the order passed by the learned writ Court and his submission was that a reading of the note appended to entry No.7, the entry No.6 has been interpreted and the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- would be applicable to those employees who are holding Class-II (Gazetted) posts and whose recruitment was made directly by the Public Service Commission and supported the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court as well as the opinion given by the Finance Department. 5. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. We have also considered the definition of the existing pay-scale as well as the revised pay-scale given in Pay Rules, 1990, which reads as under :-- 3 (c) 'existing scale' means the scale of pay as shown :-- (i) in column (2) of Annexure-l in respect of the post other than that mentioned in Annexure-II; and (ii) in column (3) of Annexure- II in respect of the post mentioned therein; (d) xxxxxxxxxxx (i) xxxxxxxxxxx (ii) xxxxxxxxxxx (iii) xxxxxxxxxx (iv) xxxxxxxxxx (e) revised scale - (i) in relation to the post other than that mentioned in Annexure (II) carrying existing scale mentioned in column (2) thereof, means the corresponding scale of pay mentioned against that scale in column (4) of that Annexure; (ii) in relation. to the post mentioned in Annexure-II, carrying existing scale mentioned in column (3) thereof, means the corresponding scale of pay mentioned against that scale in column (4) of that Annexure, unless, a different revised scales is not notified separately for that post. 4. Revised Scale of Pay -- As from the date of commencement of these rules, the scale of every post carrying existing scale shall be as specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the Annexure- I or Annexure-II as the case may be." 6. It is true that Schedule- I appended to Rules of 1990 is a general revision order applicable to the pay-scale and not to the posts. Schedule-II appended to Rules of 1990 is applicable to the posts specifically mentioned in the Schedule-II and item No.6 of Schedule-II specifically applicable to the post of Statistical Officer. Against this post it is mentioned that the revised pay-scale of this post would be the same as applicable to the post of the Directorate. It is true that there are two different entries in the Schedule-II i.e. entry No.6 & 7. The entry No.6 is a specific entry and entry No.7 is a general entry. As per normal rule of interpretation, the specific entry will supersede the general entry and when there is a specific entry of post in item No.6, the pay-scale mentioned in entry No.7 will not be applicable in the case of the entry No.6. It is also clear that the Finance Department vide letter dated 27th August, 1990 has not given any opinion about entry No.6 but department's opinion is about entry No.7. Therefore, it is clear that the Finance Department has not considered the entry No.6 of Schedule-II and has not interpreted the same. Though the case of entry No.6 was referred to Finance Department but it gave opinion about only entry No.7, therefore, the interpretation of the Finance Department would not be applicable so far as the case of the entry No.6 is concerned. Admittedly, the appellant's case would fall under entry No. 6 and not under entry No.7. 7. Though the case of entry No.6 was referred to Finance Department but it gave opinion about only entry No.7, therefore, the interpretation of the Finance Department would not be applicable so far as the case of the entry No.6 is concerned. Admittedly, the appellant's case would fall under entry No. 6 and not under entry No.7. 7. Thus, we are of the view that according to entry No.6, there is specific mentioned in column No.4 that the revision of pay-scale would be the same which is applicable to the post of the Directorate of Economics and Statistics which is clear from the letter dated 11.4.1990 (Annexure AS) of the Department and the revised pay-scale of the post of District Statistical Officer is Rs. 2200-4000/-. This is also clear from the interpretation of the existing pay-scale under clause-C and the revised scale mentioned in sub-clause (ii) of clause (e) of rule 3 of Pay Rules, 1990. When there is a specific mention in entry No.6 about pay-scale of Statistical Officer which is Rs. 2200-4000/- the same is applicable on the case of the appellant and certainly the interpretation given by the Finance Department shall not be applicable. 8. Thus, we hold that the appellant's pay-scale was rightly revised in the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- and subsequently it was wrongly reduced after the opinion given by the Finance Department which is not applicable, in the case of appellant. The appellant is entitled for revised pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. 9. With the aforesaid direction, we allow and dispose of the appeal. In view of this order appellant's pension shall be re-fixed as he has retired and any payment due to be paid in accordance with the Rules and all benefits will be paid as per entitlement of the appellant within three months. The appellant shall also be entitled for refund of the amount recovered from him. Parties to bear their own cost.