Criminal Trident Pack: IPC, CrPC and IEA by Sr. Adv. G.S Shukla and Adv. Raghav Arora
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Pay protection

K.S.Srinivas ,
  13 September 2011       Share Bookmark

Court :
Supreme Court of India
Brief :
Pay protection — benefit of — entitlement of — in question — writ petition filed — the High Court held that the appellant is not entitled to pay protection and, therefore, his claim was rejected — the contents of the notification/memorandum clearly stated that the employees of the State Government Undertakings selected for posts in Central Government on direct recruitment basis on and after 01.02.1992 were extended the benefit of pay protection. But since the appellant was selected and appointed to a post in Central Government on 23.02.1990 after working as an employee of the State Government Undertaking, viz., UPSEB, the notification was not applicable to him — the appellant accepted the appointment without any demur or protest on the issue of pay being given to him under the appointment order issued to him by the Military Engineering Service, Ministry of Defence, fixing his pay scale at the minimum of the pay scale of Rs. 2200 — impugned order of the High Court affirmed
Citation :
Jagdish Parwani Appellant versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/15/2011.

REPORTABLE

 

                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 

                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

 

 

 

                     CIVIL APPEAL NO.   5481 OF 2011

 

                  [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8403 of 2009]

 

 

 

 

 

Jagdish Parwani                                                .... Appellant

 

 

 

 

 

                                       Versus

 

 

 

 

 

Union of India & Ors.                                        .... Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

                                        WITH

 

 

                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5482 OF 2011

 

                  [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8404 of 2009]

 

 

 

 

 

                                         JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

 

 

 

 

1. Leave granted.

 

 

 

 

2.    The  appeal   is   directed  against   the   judgment   and   order  dated

 

 

      11.09.2009  passed  by   the   High   Court   of   Madhya   Pradesh

 

 

 

      Bench at Gwalior in Review Petition No. 185 of 2009. The said

 

 

 

      review   petition   was   filed   by   the   appellant   herein   against   the

 

 

 

 

 

                                    Page 1 of 14

 


 

      order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya

 

 

 

      Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, in Writ Petition (s) No. 882 of 2003.

 

 

 

      Appellant has also preferred a separate appeal [arising out of

 

 

 

      SLP(C) No. 8404 of 2009] against the said decision of the High

 

 

 

      Court of Madhya Pradesh in the Writ Petition No. 882 of 2003.

 

 

 

      By  this order we propose to dispose of both the appeals  filed

 

 

 

      by the appellant.

 

 

 

 

3.    The facts leading to filing of the aforesaid appeals are that the

 

 

      appellant   being   a   graduate   engineer   appeared   for   Indian

 

 

 

      Engineering Services examination which was held pursuant to

 

 

 

      an   advertisement   issued   by   the   Union   Public   Service

 

 

 

      Commission   in   the   year   1987   for   filling   up   the   post   of

 

 

 

      Assistant Executive Engineer [Buildings and Roads] in Military

 

 

 

      Engineering   Service,   Ministry   of   Defence.   The   appellant   was

 

 

 

      working   as   an   Assistant   Engineer   in   Uttar   Pradesh   State

 

 

 

      Electricity   Board   [for   short   "UPSEB"],   w.e.f.,   1st  January,

 

 

 

      1988.   He   having   qualified   in   the   aforesaid   competitive

 

 

 

      examination,   the   appellant   was   offered   an   appointment   as

 

 

 

      Assistant   Executive   Engineer   [Buildings   and   Roads]   in   the

 

 

 

      Military Engineering Services by an appointment letter issued

 

 

 

      by   the   Ministry   of   Defence   dated   06.09.1989.   Consequently,

 

 

 

 

                                  Page 2 of 14

 


 

  he resigned from the UPSEB and as per his last pay certificate

 

 

 

  from  UPSEB,   he   was  drawing  a  basic   pay   of  Rs.  2750/-.  His

 

 

 

  resignation was accepted and he was released from the service

 

 

 

  of UPSEB on 19.02.1990.

 

 

 

 

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter of appointment issued by the

 

 

 

  Ministry   of   Defence   the   appellant   joined   the   Military

 

 

 

  Engineering   Service   Department   on   23.02.1990   in   the   pay

 

 

 

  scale   of   Rs.   2200-4000.   In   the   appointment   letter   issued   on

 

 

 

  06.09.1989   the   appellant   was   also   informed   that   his   pay

 

 

 

  would be fixed at the minimum of the pay scale, viz., Rs. 2200.

 

 

 

  The   aforesaid   appointment   of   the   appellant   was   against   a

 

 

 

  temporary   post   but   the   same   was   likely   to   continue

 

 

 

  indefinitely. The appellant was also placed on probation for a

 

 

 

  period   of   two   years   from   the   date   of   his   appointment   with   a

 

 

 

  clear stipulation that his appointment could be terminated at

 

 

 

  any   time   on   one   month's   notice   given   on   either   side   without

 

 

 

  assigning   any   reason.   The   appellant   continued   to   receive  the

 

 

 

  aforesaid   pay   as   fixed   by   the   respondents   till   the   month   of

 

 

 

  September, 1991, i.e., for a period of more than one and a half

 

 

 

  years   and   thereafter   he   submitted   three   representations   on

 

 

 

  11.09.1991, 12.02.1992 and 14.12.1992 respectively claiming

 

 

 

 

                                 Page 3 of 14

 


 

  pay   protection   on   the   basis   of   a   notification   issued   by   the

 

 

 

  Ministry   of   Personnel,   Public   Grievances   and   Pensions

 

 

 

  [Department   of   Personnel   &   Training]   dated   07.08.1989.   In

 

 

 

  the   said   representations   the   appellant   claimed   that   he   was

 

 

 

  entitled   to   receive   a   salary   of   Rs.   3000/-   per   month,   w.e.f.,

 

 

 

  23.2.1990 and not Rs. 2200/-.

 

 

 

 

5. While   the   aforesaid   representations   of   the   appellant   were

 

 

 

  being   considered   by   the   respondents,   another   notification

 

 

 

  came   to   be   issued   on   28.02.1992   by   the   Department   of

 

 

 

  Personnel & Training extending grant of pay protection to the

 

 

 

  employees   of   State   Government   Undertakings   joining   service

 

 

 

  in Central Government on and after 01.02.1990.

 

 

 

 

6. By   a   Communication   dated   14.02.1995   the   appellant   was

 

 

 

  informed   by   the   respondents   that   he   is   not   entitled   to   such

 

 

 

  pay   protection   as   claimed   by   him   in   the   representations

 

 

 

  submitted by him.

 

 

 

 

7. Being   aggrieved   by   the   aforesaid   communication   dated

 

 

 

  14.02.1995           communicating            the         rejection         of         the

 

 

 

  representations   of   the   appellant   for   pay   protection,   the

 

 

 

  appellant   filed   an   Original   Application   before   the   Central

 

 

 

 

 

                                 Page 4 of 14

 


 

   Administrative Tribunal [Jabalpur Bench], Jabalpur [for short

 

 

 

   "Tribunal"]   claiming   and   seeking   an   order   for   giving   him   the

 

 

 

   pay protection which was last paid to him by the UPSEB. The

 

 

 

   Tribunal   issued   an   order   on   01.10.2002   directing   the

 

 

 

   respondents   to   fix   pay   of   the   appellant   by   giving   him   pay

 

 

 

   protection within six months and also to pay him the arrears

 

 

 

   of pay and allowances.

 

 

 

 

8. Aggrieved  by   the   said   order   of   the   Tribunal   the   respondents-

 

 

 

   Union   of   India   filed   a   Writ   Petition   which   was   registered   as

 

 

 

   WP(S) No. 882 of 2003 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court,

 

 

 

   Gwalior  Bench.  The  High   Court  after   considering  the  facts   of

 

 

 

   the case passed judgment and order dated 16.04.2009 holding

 

 

 

   that   the   appellant   is   not   entitled   to   pay   protection   and,

 

 

 

   therefore,   his   claim   was   rejected.   It   was   further   held   by   the

 

 

 

   High   Court   that   the   Tribunal   committed   grave   error   in

 

 

 

   granting   pay   protection   to   the   appellant.   The   appellant

 

 

 

   aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the High Court, preferred a

 

 

 

   Review Petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court which

 

 

 

   was dismissed by order dated 11.09.2009 holding that there is

 

 

 

   no   mistake   apparent   on   the   face   of   the   records   in   the   order

 

 

 

   impugned   in   the   review   petition.   The   aforesaid   orders   are

 

 

 

 

                                  Page 5 of 14

 


 

   challenged   in   the   present   appeals   on   which   we   heard   the

 

 

 

   learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the

 

 

 

   records.

 

 

 

 

9. The   facts,   which   are   stated   hereinbefore,   leading   to   filing   of

 

 

 

   the present appeals are not disputed. The appellant joined the

 

 

 

   UP   State   Electricity   Board   on   01.01.1988   and   while   working

 

 

 

   with the Board he resigned from the service and at that time

 

 

 

   he   was   drawing   the   basic   pay   of   Rs.   2750/-   per   month.

 

 

 

   Thereafter   his   resignation   was   accepted   and   he   was   released

 

 

 

   from   the   service   of  the   UPSEB   on  19.02.1990.   The   appellant

 

 

 

   was given the appointment to the post of Assistant Executive

 

 

 

   Engineer   [Buildings   and   Roads]   in   Military   Engineering

 

 

 

   Service   [for   short   "MES"],   Ministry   of   Defence   and   he   joined

 

 

 

   the   said   post   on  23.02.1990   and   at   the   time   of   appointment

 

 

 

   his terms and conditions of appointment  were  clearly set out

 

 

 

   in the order of appointment whereby his pay was fixed in the

 

 

 

   pay sale of Rs. 2200-4000 with a stipulation that he would be

 

 

 

   paid basic salary of Rs. 2200 plus dearness allowance.

 

 

 

 

10.Reliance   was   placed   by   the   appellant   on  the   contents   of   the

 

 

 

   Memorandum   dated   06.09.1989   which   was   in   the   nature   of

 

 

 

 

 

                                  Page 6 of 14

 


 

   guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence fixing the pay. A

 

 

 

   copy   of   the   said   memorandum   is   annexed   to   the

 

 

 

   memorandum of appeal as Annexure-P1.

 

 

 

 

11.Paragraph   1   of   the   said   guidelines   provided   that   as   per   the

 

 

 

   extant   rules/orders,   on   fixation   of   pay,   pay   protection   is

 

 

 

   granted   to   candidates   who   were   appointed   by   the   method   of

 

 

 

   recruitment   by   selection   through   the   Union   Public   Service

 

 

 

   Commission   if  such candidates are  in Government  service.  It

 

 

 

   was   also   stipulated   in   the   said   paragraph   1   of   the

 

 

 

   memorandum   that   no   such   pay   protection   would   be   granted

 

 

 

   to   candidates   working   in   public   sector   undertakings,

 

 

 

   universities,   semi-Government   institutions   or   autonomous

 

 

 

   bodies, when they are so appointed in Government.

 

 

 

 

12.Paragraph   2   thereof   on   which   reliance   was   placed   by   the

 

 

 

   counsel appearing for the appellant provided that the question

 

 

 

   as   to   how   pay   protection   can   be   given   in   the   case   of

 

 

 

   candidates recruited from the public sector undertakings, etc.,

 

 

 

   has   been   engaging   the   attention   of   the   Government   for

 

 

 

   sometime and that after careful consideration of the same the

 

 

 

   President was pleased to decide that in respect of candidates

 

 

 

 

 

                                  Page 7 of 14

 


 

   working   in   public   sector   undertakings,   universities,   semi-

 

 

 

   Government   institutions,   autonomous   bodies,   who   were

 

 

 

   appointed   as   direct   recruits   on   selection   through   a   properly

 

 

 

   constituted agency including departmental authorities making

 

 

 

   recruitment directly their initial pay could be fixed at a stage

 

 

 

   in the scale of pay attached to the post so that the pay and DA

 

 

 

   already   being   drawn   by   them   in   their   parent   organisation.   It

 

 

 

   was   also   stipulated   therein   that   in   the   event  of   such   a   stage

 

 

 

   not   being   available   in   the   post   to   which   they   have   been

 

 

 

   recruited, their pay may be fixed at a stage just below in the

 

 

 

   scale   of  the   post  to  which   they   have   been recruited,   so  as  to

 

 

 

   ensure a minimum loss to the candidates. 

 

 

 

 

13.It   is   evident   from   the   aforesaid   stipulation   in   the   relevant

 

 

 

   clause that such pay scale received is protected in the case of

 

 

 

   only   Central   Government   Public   Sector   Undertakings,   etc.,

 

 

 

   inasmuch as the decision to grant such benefit was restricted

 

 

 

   specifically   to   Central   Government   employees   and   also

 

 

 

   employees   of   central   government   public   sector   undertakings.

 

 

 

   This   position   got   fortified   and   clearly   explained   by   the

 

 

 

   issuance   of   the   subsequent   notification   dated   28.2.1992,   to

 

 

 

   which reference is made immediately hereafter.

 

 

 

 

                                   Page 8 of 14

 


 

14.Reliance   was   placed   by   the   counsel   appearing   for   the

 

 

 

   appellant on the subsequent OM issued by the Department of

 

 

 

   Personnel and Training issued on 28.02.1992. The contents of

 

 

 

   the   said   notification/memorandum   is   extracted   hereinbelow

 

 

 

   for easy reference and for better understanding: -

 

 

 

 

      "DoPT OM NO.12/1/88-Estt (Pay-I) dated 28.2.1992.

 

 

         "PAY PROTECTION ALSO TO CANDIDATES FROM 

 

      STATE PSUs RECRUITED BY PROPER SELECTION TO 

 

                       CENTRAL GOVERNMENT"

 

 

      The   Undersigned   is   directed   to   say   that   question   of 

 

      inclusion   of   employees   of   State   Government 

 

      undertakings  within  the  purview of this  Department's 

 

      OM   No.   12/1/88-Estt   (Pay-I),   dated   7.8.1989   has 

 

      been   engaging   the   attention   of   the   Government   for 

 

      some   time.   The  matter   has  been   carefully  considered 

 

      and the president is pleased to decide that provisions 

 

      of   this   Department's   OM   of   even   number   dated 

 

      7.8.1989, may  be extended to the  employees of State 

 

      Government Undertakings selected for posts in Central 

 

      Government   on   direct   recruitment   basis   as   in   case   of 

 

      Central Public Undertakings.

 

 

      These orders take  effect from the first of the month in 

 

      which this OM is issued."

 

 

 

 

 

A bare perusal of the Memorandum would make it crystal clear

 

 

 

that   the   employees   of   the   State   Government   Undertakings

 

 

 

selected   for   posts   in   Central   Government   on   direct   recruitment

 

 

 

basis on and after 01.02.1992 were also extended the benefit of

 

 

 

 

 

                                  Page 9 of 14

 


 

pay protection,  as was  provided in the case of the  employees  of

 

 

 

Central   Government   Public   Undertakings   as   per   notification

 

 

 

dated 07.08.1989.

 

 

 

 

15.In the aforesaid notification, it was clearly stipulated that the

 

 

 

  said benefit of pay protection is effective only from the first of

 

 

 

  the   month   in   which   the   OM   is   issued,   i.e.,   from   01.02.1992,

 

 

 

  which   means   that   the   said   OM   was   given   prospective   effect

 

 

 

  only.   Therefore,   the   said   OM   could   even   be   said   to   be   a

 

 

 

  clarification   on  the   issue   which   is   sought   to   be   raised   in   the

 

 

 

  present case. It was clearly pointed out in the said notification

 

 

 

  that employees like the appellant would be entitled to get such

 

 

 

  pay   protection,   as   employees   of   the   State   Government

 

 

 

  Undertakings   on   their   appointment   in   Central   Government

 

 

 

  service   only   from   the   effective   date   of   01.02.1992.   If   the

 

 

 

  appellant   would   have   been   appointed   for   a   post   in   Central

 

 

 

  Government   on   direct   recruitment   basis   after   01.02.1992

 

 

 

  such benefit of pay protection could have been made available

 

 

 

  to him. But since the appellant was selected and appointed to

 

 

 

  a post in Central Government on 23.02.1990 after working as

 

 

 

  an   employee   of   the   State   Government   Undertaking,   viz.,

 

 

 

  UPSEB, the notification dated  07.08.1989 was not applicable

 

 

 

 

                                 Page 10 of 14

 


 

   to   him   and,   therefore,   he   could   not   have   legally   claimed   for

 

 

 

   any pay protection.

 

 

 

 

16.Being   fully   aware   of   the   aforesaid   position   the   appellant

 

 

 

   accepted   the   appointment   without   any   demur   or   protest   on

 

 

 

   the   issue   of   pay   being   given   to   him   under   the   appointment

 

 

 

   order   issued   to   him   by   the   Military   Engineering   Service,

 

 

 

   Ministry of Defence, fixing his pay scale at the minimum of the

 

 

 

   pay scale of Rs. 2200. He accepted the said pay scale without

 

 

 

   raising   any   grievance   and   continued   to   receive   the   same   till

 

 

 

   11.09.1991,   when   for   the   first   time   he   submitted   his   first

 

 

 

   representation   for   pay   protection   as   per   notification   dated

 

 

 

   07.08.1989.

 

 

 

 

17.The position with regard to the entitlement or otherwise of the

 

 

 

   appellant for getting pay protection was made clear by issuing

 

 

 

   the   notification   dated   28.02.1992   clearly   stipulating   therein

 

 

 

   that   an   employee   of   the   State   Government   Undertaking

 

 

 

   selected for post in Central Government on direct recruitment

 

 

 

   basis would be entitled to pay protection upon appointment in

 

 

 

   Central   Government   only   effective   from   01.02.1992.   The

 

 

 

   appellant having joined the MES, Ministry of Defence prior to

 

 

 

 

 

                                 Page 11 of 14

 


 

  the   aforesaid   date   was   not   entitled   to   the   benefit   of   the

 

 

 

  aforesaid notification which was issued much after his joining

 

 

 

  date and, therefore, the benefit of the aforesaid notification is

 

 

 

  not available to the appellant.

 

 

 

 

18. Counsel appearing for the appellant however sought to submit

 

 

 

  that to deny the benefit of the notification dated 28.02.1992 to

 

 

 

  the appellant was discriminatory  in nature and in support of

 

 

 

  the said  contention  the  counsel relied  on the  decision  of this

 

 

 

  Court   in   the   case   of  T.S.   Thiruvengadam   v.   Secretary   to

 

 

  Government   of   India,   Ministry   of   Finance,   Deptt.   of

 

 

  Expenditure,   New   Delhi  reported   in  (1993)   2   SCC   174.   In

 

 

  our considered opinion the ratio of the aforesaid decision was

 

 

 

  rendered   in   respect  of   case   of  pension   which   is   a   continuing

 

 

 

  cause   of   action.   Facts   of   the   said   case   are   clearly

 

 

 

  distinguishable   from   the   facts   of   the   present   case   and,

 

 

 

  therefore, the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the

 

 

 

  case   in   hand.   There   is   an   inherent   clear   distinction   between

 

 

 

  the two concepts of pay protection and pension. So far getting

 

 

 

  pay  protection  is  concerned,  the said  issue  arises  as soon as

 

 

 

  an   employee   joins   his   new   post,   where   he   gets   his   new   pay

 

 

 

  scale   and   if   he   is   entitled   to   any   pay   protection   that   is   the

 

 

 

 

                                  Page 12 of 14

 


 

   stage   and   date   when   it   is   granted   by   whatever   notifications,

 

 

 

   memorandums   which   are   available   and   applicable   at   that

 

 

 

   stage laying down such rules regarding pay protection. At that

 

 

 

   stage   what   was   operating   in   the   field   was   the   notification

 

 

 

   issued   on   07.08.1989   which   was   not   applicable   to   the

 

 

 

   appellant.   The   appellant   also   clearly   understood   the   position

 

 

 

   and   therefore   based   his   entire   claim   and   right   on   the

 

 

 

   subsequent notification dated 28.02.1992, although appointed

 

 

 

   to the post of Central Government on 23.02.1990.

 

 

 

 

19.In the present case it cannot be said that a notification issued

 

 

 

   after   two   years   of   the   appointment   of   the   appellant   which   is

 

 

 

   also   specifically   stated   to   have   been   issued   with   prospective

 

 

 

   effect is applicable in his case.

 

 

 

 

20.Consequently,   we   hold   that   the   High   Court   was   justified   in

 

 

 

   setting   aside   the   order   of   the   Tribunal   as   the   Tribunal   has

 

 

 

   misread   and   misinterpreted   the   facts   as   also   the   legal

 

 

 

   principles in law.

 

 

 

 

21.We,   therefore,   find   no   merit   in   these   appeals,   which   are

 

 

 

   dismissed, but, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

 

 

 

 

                                 Page 13 of 14

 


 

                                               ............................................J

 

                                                      [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

 

 

 

 

 

                                              ............................................J

 

                                                 [Anil R. Dave]

 

New Delhi,

 

July 15, 2011.

 

 

 

 

 

                                 P

 
"Loved reading this piece by K.S.Srinivas?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Labour & Service Law
Views : 5989
downloaded 293 times




Comments






Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query