1996 JTR(SC) 163
1996 33 ATC 269 ; 1996 83 ELT 485 ; 1996 1 JT 709 ; 1997 LIC 981 ; 1996 1 Scale 696 ; 1996 7 SCC 275 ; 1996 SCC(L&S) 579 ; 1996 1 SCR 841 ; 1996 2 SCT 188 ; 1996 1 SLR 773 ; 1996 85 Taxman 344 ; 1996 KHC 4040 ; 1996 2 Supreme 17
1996(2) Supreme 17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Administration), Bangalore -Appellant
versus
V. K. Gururaj & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2537-43 of 1996
Decided on 22-1-1996
IMPORTANT POINT
Payment of special pay of Rs. 35/- p.m. to UDC s discharging special duties is of personal nature, it cannot be given to other UDC s though senior, who are not performing said duties.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.5 R.1, O.5 R.10
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
EVIDENCE ACT : S.114
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT : S.27
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) Special pay is personal in nature and limited to officers actually discharging specified duties; non-assignees, even if senior, are not entitled on parity.
Facts of the case:
Office notices issued to respondents, some served and some deemed served; respondents did not appear; they were UDCs claiming special pay of Rs. 35/- per month for special duties not actually performed.
Findings of Court:
Tribunal incorrectly directed payment to all UDCs irrespective of actual performance; special pay is personal to those discharging onerous duties assigned to 10% special posts.
Issues:
Whether UDCs who do not perform special duties are entitled to special pay of Rs. 35/- per month on parity with those who do.
Ratio Decidendi:
Special grant of pay is personal compensation for specific duties; payment restricted to actual performers, and seniority without performance does not create a right.
Result:
Appeal allowed; payment to non-performers disallowed.
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) Special pay is personal in nature and limited to officers actually discharging specified duties; non-assignees, even if senior, are not entitled on parity.
Facts of the case:
Office notices issued to respondents, some served and some deemed served; respondents did not appear; they were UDCs claiming special pay of Rs. 35/- per month for special duties not actually performed.
Findings of Court:
Tribunal incorrectly directed payment to all UDCs irrespective of actual performance; special pay is personal to those discharging onerous duties assigned to 10% special posts.
Issues:
Whether UDCs who do not perform special duties are entitled to special pay of Rs. 35/- per month on parity with those who do.
Ratio Decidendi:
Special grant of pay is personal compensation for specific duties; payment restricted to actual performers, and seniority without performance does not create a right.
Result:
Appeal allowed; payment to non-performers disallowed.
ORDER
Office report shows that notice was is sued to the respondents on 25.8.1993. Though it was served on respondent No.2 on 14.9.1993 and on respondent No.7 on 7.9.1993, they do not appear either in person or through counsel. Neither unserved envelopes nor A/D cards have been received in respect of respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6. Under these circumstances, notice to them must be deemed to have been served.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. The Government in O.M.No. F7(52) E III/78, dated May 5, 1979 have stated that special grant of pay of Rs. 35/- per month to the Upper Division Clerks in the non-secretariat administrative offices was provided. Out of the UDCs carrying the scale of Rs. 330-560/-, 10% of the posts were earmarked with special grant of pay of Rs. 35/- in the secretariat and other places and they were directed to handle cases of complex nature involving deep study and competence. For dealing with such cases certain officers have been promoted to that 10% posts specified among the UDCs in the secretariat as well as non-secretariat administrative officers. They were being paid @ Rs. 35/- per month as compensation for discharge of special duties. The respondents were not actually discharging those duties but being UDCs they claimed special pay of Rs. 35/-. The Tribunal in the impugned order following its earlier decision dated 9.10.1991 made in O.A. 394/90 allowed the petition and directed payment. We have directed the counsel to find out whether any appeal has been filed against the said order. It would appear that no appeal has been filed against the said order. However, it being a question of law and since the matter is of perennial problem applicable to several places, we are of the considered view that the failure to file an appeal in one case does not have the effect of following in all other cases. It is seen that payment of Rs. 35/- per month to UDCs discharging special duties of onerous nature, is personal pay so long as they discharge the same. Therefore, other UDCs who do not perform the special duties, though seniors, do not ipso facto get the same pay on the parity of equal pay due to juniors getting higher pay. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the Tribunal was wholly incorrect in directing payment to all the persons who did not discharge such duties assigned to the 10% special posts of UDCs carrying special pay of Rs. 35/- per month.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Appeal accordingly allowed.
*******
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Chief Commissioner of Income-tax v. V.K. Gururaj & Ors., 1996(2) Supreme 17
00021