Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2012 (PNJ)

Ashok Kumar v. Union Of India

2010-07-12

A.N.JINDAL, M.M.KUMAR

body2010
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The instant petition filed by one Shri Ashok Kumar, Compounder, is directed against order dated 8.5.1997, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, `the Tribunal), passed in OA No. 470-HR of 1997, rejecting the claim made by the applicant-petitioner that since the pay scale of the post of Compounder has not been revised, he should be paid the pay scale equivalent to the post of Pharmacist. 2. The Tribunal has rejected the claim on two grounds. Firstly, the Tribunal has placed reliance on a 7-Judge Constitution Bench judgment of Honble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P., AIR 1990 SC 10, and has held that once the pay scales were revised in the year 1986, the applicantpetitioner had cause of action at that time and should have filed the petition within one year. According to the view taken by the Tribunal the filing of the repeated representations would not enlarge the period of limitation envisaged by Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Even on merit, the Tribunal has held that the matter concerning pay scales are best left to the discretion of expert bodies like the Pay Commission and should not normally be interfered with by the judicial bodies. In that regard reliance has been placed on another judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121. 3. Mr. V.G. Dogra, learned counsel for the applicantpetitioner has argued that once the pay scale of the post of Compounder was not revised it would not mean that the applicantpetitioner would continue to draw the un-revised pay scale of Rs. 330-560. According to the learned counsel the revision in respect of the pay scale of the post of Compounder probably has not been ordered on account of the reason that the Government had issued instructions on 19.7.1955 that the expression of `Compounder be not used. Those instructions were reiterated on 6.4.1987 (P-3). It has been emphasised that the post of Compounder, in fact, is a post of Pharmacist and, therefore, it should be granted the pay scale of Pharmacist, which is Rs. 1350-2200. Those instructions were reiterated on 6.4.1987 (P-3). It has been emphasised that the post of Compounder, in fact, is a post of Pharmacist and, therefore, it should be granted the pay scale of Pharmacist, which is Rs. 1350-2200. On the question of limitation, learned counsel has submitted that with regard to matter concerning fixation of pay, no period of limitation would be applicable because the cause of action would arise every month when the applicantpetitioner is given the pay of that month. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Honble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, 1996(1) S.C.T. 8 : AIR 1996 SC 669. 4. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents to support the order of the Tribunal. 5. Having heard learned counsel we are of the view that the matter needs to be examined in the light of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 (for brevity, `the Rules). It is undisputed that the applicant-petitioner was appointed on the post of Compounder on 1.6.1981 in the pay scale of Rs. 330- 560 (P-2). The pay scales were revised by the IVth Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Accordingly, the respondent-Union of India framed the Rules. According to Rule 3 and 4, the pay scales of various posts were revised as per the First Schedule appended to the Rules. Rule 3 talks of definition of basic pay, existing scale, present scale and revised scale etc. The relevant part of Rule 3, Rule 4 and that of the First Schedule appended to the Rules is extracted below :- "3. Definitions. - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires - (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) "existing scale" in relation to a Government servant means the present scale applicable to post held by the Government servant (or, as the case may be, personal scale applicable to him) as on the 1st day of January, 1986 whether in a substantive or officiating capacity : Explanation. - In the case of a Government servant, who was on the 1st day of January, 1986 on deputation out of India or on leave or on foreign service, or who would have on that date officiated in one or more lower posts but for his officiating in a higher post, "existing scale" includes the scale applicable to the post which he would have held but for his being on deputation out of India or on leave or on foreign service or, as the case may be, but for his officiating in a higher post; (3) "present scale in relation to any post specified in Column 2 of the first schedule means the scale of pay whether fixed or otherwise specified against that post in Column 3 thereof; (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) "revised scale" in relation to any post specified in Column 2 of the First Schedule means, the scale of pay whether fixed or otherwise specified against that post in Column 4 thereof unless a different revised scale is notified separately for that post; 6) xxx xxx xxx" "4. Scale of pay of posts. - As from the date of commencement of these rules, the scale of pay of every post specified in Column 2 of the First Schedule shall be as specified against it in Column 4 thereof." ---------------- " THE FIRST SCHEDULE [See Rules 3 and 4] Revised scales for posts carrying present scales in Groups `D, `C, `B and `A except posts for which different revised scales are notified separately Sl. No. Posts Present scale Revised scale (1) (2) (3) (4) 1 to 10 xxx xxx xxx 11. All posts carrying present scales specified in Column 3. (a) 330-10-380-EB-12-500-EB-15-560 1,200-30-1,560-EB-40-2,040 (b) 330-10-350-EB-10-380-15-500-EB-15-560 (c) 330-8-370-10-400-EB-10-500-15-530 (d) 290-8-330-10-380-EB-12-500-EB-15-560 (e) 290-10-350-EB-12-410-EB-15-500 12. xxx xxx xxx 13. All posts carrying present scales specified in Column 3. (a) 380-12-440-EB-15-560-EB-20-620 1,320-30-1,560-EB-40-2,040 (b) 380-12-440-EB-15-560-EB-20-640 (c) 425-15-530-EB-15-560-20-600 (d) 470-15-560-20-580 A perusal of the aforesaid Rules would show that the `existing scale meant the present scale applicable to the post held by a Government servant as on 1.1.1986 whether in a substantive or officiating capacity. xxx xxx xxx 13. All posts carrying present scales specified in Column 3. (a) 380-12-440-EB-15-560-EB-20-620 1,320-30-1,560-EB-40-2,040 (b) 380-12-440-EB-15-560-EB-20-640 (c) 425-15-530-EB-15-560-20-600 (d) 470-15-560-20-580 A perusal of the aforesaid Rules would show that the `existing scale meant the present scale applicable to the post held by a Government servant as on 1.1.1986 whether in a substantive or officiating capacity. The expression `present scale has also been defined in relation to any post specified in Column 2 of First Schedule to mean the scale of pay specified against that post in Column 3 of the First Schedule and `revised scale was to mean the higher pay scale specified in Column 2 of the First Schedule. 6. It would also be necessary to make a reference to the First Schedule which specifies the revised scale for posts carrying present scale. At Entry 11, the scale of Rs. 330-560 has been mentioned which bunched together with the pay scale of Rs. 330-530, Rs. 290-560, Rs. 290-500 and all the scales have been revised to Rs. 1200-2040. It is, thus, apparent that the applicant-petitioner has been given the revised pay scale in accordance with the revision of his pay scale to the higher scale. Therefore, the claim made by the applicantpetitioner for grant of the scale of Rs. 1350-2200 cannot be accepted because in order to become entitled to the aforesaid scale he should have worked in either of the unrevised pay scales of Rs. 380-620, Rs. 380-640, Rs. 425-600 and Rs. 470-580. The aforesaid position is evident from the perusal of Entry 13 of the First Schedule. Hence, on merit, the applicant-petitioner has no case because grant of pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 would result into treating the unequals equally. 7. The second issue with regard to limitation would not required to be gone into because on merit the applicant-petitioner has no case. 8. There is another aspect of the matter. The post of Compounder continues to exist in the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, known as `Northern Region Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Hissar (Department of Agriculture & Cooperation)(Group `C & `D Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989 (Annexure R-1). Therefore, in the absence of any amendment in the said rules, it cannot be claimed that the Compounder is entitled to be known as Pharmacist. Therefore, in the absence of any amendment in the said rules, it cannot be claimed that the Compounder is entitled to be known as Pharmacist. Therefore, in any case the pay scale of the post of Pharmacist cannot be granted to a Compounder. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.