Case Note & Summary
The State of Uttar Pradesh and others appealed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dated 01.11.2017, which allowed the writ petition of the respondent, Vijay Shankar Dubey, granting him the benefit of a higher pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996. The respondent was initially appointed as Assistant Public Officer on 11.02.1963 and promoted as Joint Director, Prosecution on 12.06.1964. He retired on 31.01.1997 in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5000 as per the Fourth Pay Commission. After the Fifth Pay Commission, his pay scale was revised to Rs.12000-16500 with effect from 01.01.1996, and his pension was revised accordingly. Subsequently, a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary was constituted to consider anomalies in pay scales. The Committee recommended upgrading the pay scales of various categories of the Prosecution cadre on the analogy of the CBI organisation with effect from 01.04.2001. For the post of Joint Director, Prosecution, the pay scale was revised to Rs.14300-18500 with effect from 01.04.2001, as per Government Order dated 02.02.2007. The respondent, who had retired on 31.01.1997, made a representation on 21.07.2011 seeking the benefit of this order from 01.01.1996, which was rejected on 30.11.2012. The High Court allowed his writ petition, relying on two earlier judgments in Anand Kumar Mishra and Ghanshayam Singh, which were cases of employees of different departments. The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, held that the date 01.04.2001 was fixed on a rational basis following the CBI analogy and could not be challenged by the respondent. The High Court's reliance on judgments relating to different departments was erroneous. The Court also noted that another Division Bench in Sudhir Kumar Gupta's case had correctly held that the benefit could not be extended to Joint Directors who retired before 01.04.2001. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the respondent's writ petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Scale Revision - Retrospective Effect - The State Government revised pay scales of certain posts in the Prosecution Department with effect from 01.04.2001, based on the recommendation of a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, adopting the analogy of CBI organisation. The respondent, who retired on 31.01.1997, claimed the benefit from 01.01.1996. The Supreme Court held that the date 01.04.2001 was fixed on a rational basis and cannot be challenged by the respondent. The High Court's reliance on judgments relating to different departments was erroneous. (Paras 11-18) B) Service Law - Pension Revision - Date of Implementation - The respondent had already been granted the benefit of the Fifth Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1996. The subsequent amendment in pay scale for Joint Director (Prosecution) was a separate decision with a prospective effect from 01.04.2001. Since the respondent retired before that date, he is not entitled to the revised pension. (Paras 11-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, who retired before the effective date of the amended pay scale (01.04.2001), is entitled to the benefit of the revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 01.11.2017, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent.
Law Points
- Pay scale revision
- retrospective effect
- date of implementation
- pension revision
- anomaly committee
- CBI analogy
