1997 JTR(SC) 392
1997 1 CLR 843 ; 1997 3 JT 737 ; 1997 3 LLN 271 ; 1997 2 RSJ 512 ; 1997 3 Scale 90 ; 1997 3 SCC 632 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 843 ; 1997 1 SCJ 544 ; 1997 2 SCR 637 ; 1997 2 SCT 181 ; 1997 2 SLJ 197 ; 1997 2 SLR 429 ; 1997 3 Supreme 211
1997(3) Supreme 211
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Basudev Pati -Petitioner
versus
State of Orissa & Anr. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4084 of 1997
Decided on 3-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Janaranjan Das, K.N. Tripathy, D. Mohanty, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Service as a Lecturer is entirely different from Administrative Service and a person cannot be permitted to have benefit of U.G.C. scale in the Administrative Service and fitment in pay-scale on that basis.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.39(d)
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The constitutional provision Article 39(d) read with the service law framework governs the fixation of pay scales in public employment, ensuring that any revision or enhancement in pay structure is applied consistently and does not lead to arbitrary or disproportionate claims. The Orissa Administrative Service rules and the University Grants Commission pay scales are relevant instruments in determining the permissible extent of upward revision when a candidate transitions from an academic to a civil service role. The interplay between retrospective enhancements and the principle of non-distortion forms the core of the statutory evaluation under the Constitution.
(B) The case underscores that distinct service tenures carry separate pay structures; a prior pay scale enhanced retrospectively does not automatically carry forward into a new service framework. The tribunal correctly resisted a flood of similar claims by holding that upgrading pay solely on the basis of a prior enhanced scale would infringe the balanced operation of Article 39(d) and service rules. The last drawn pay must align with the pay band of the new service, not the earlier enhanced structure.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, while employed as a Lecturer, appeared for a competitive examination and was selected to the Orissa Administrative Service at a pay scale of Rs. 525-1150/-, which was later revised by the University Grants Commission w.e.f. April 1, 1974, to Rs. 700-1600/-. The petitioners pay was fixed at Rs. 780 with retrospective effect from April 1, 1974, and arrears were paid. Upon appointment to the Orissa Administrative Service, the petitioner sought protection of the last drawn pay and the fitment in the revised scale, which was denied by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, prompting this special leave petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the services as Lecturer and as Orissa Administrative Service are entirely different, and the benefit of the enhanced U.G.C. scale cannot be carried over into the new service. Permitting such a claim would create imbalance and gross distortion, leading to a flood of similar claims, which is not permissible under Article 39(d).
Issues:
Whether a prior enhanced pay scale retrospectively revised can be used to claim higher pay fixation in a new distinct service under Article 39(d)?
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that each service has its own pay structure, and the last drawn pay must be computed within the context of the new services scale. Retroactive enhancements from a previous service do not justify upward distortion in a new service, thereby preserving the integrity of Article 39(d) and preventing a cascade of similar claims.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed.
(A) The constitutional provision Article 39(d) read with the service law framework governs the fixation of pay scales in public employment, ensuring that any revision or enhancement in pay structure is applied consistently and does not lead to arbitrary or disproportionate claims. The Orissa Administrative Service rules and the University Grants Commission pay scales are relevant instruments in determining the permissible extent of upward revision when a candidate transitions from an academic to a civil service role. The interplay between retrospective enhancements and the principle of non-distortion forms the core of the statutory evaluation under the Constitution.
(B) The case underscores that distinct service tenures carry separate pay structures; a prior pay scale enhanced retrospectively does not automatically carry forward into a new service framework. The tribunal correctly resisted a flood of similar claims by holding that upgrading pay solely on the basis of a prior enhanced scale would infringe the balanced operation of Article 39(d) and service rules. The last drawn pay must align with the pay band of the new service, not the earlier enhanced structure.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, while employed as a Lecturer, appeared for a competitive examination and was selected to the Orissa Administrative Service at a pay scale of Rs. 525-1150/-, which was later revised by the University Grants Commission w.e.f. April 1, 1974, to Rs. 700-1600/-. The petitioners pay was fixed at Rs. 780 with retrospective effect from April 1, 1974, and arrears were paid. Upon appointment to the Orissa Administrative Service, the petitioner sought protection of the last drawn pay and the fitment in the revised scale, which was denied by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, prompting this special leave petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the services as Lecturer and as Orissa Administrative Service are entirely different, and the benefit of the enhanced U.G.C. scale cannot be carried over into the new service. Permitting such a claim would create imbalance and gross distortion, leading to a flood of similar claims, which is not permissible under Article 39(d).
Issues:
Whether a prior enhanced pay scale retrospectively revised can be used to claim higher pay fixation in a new distinct service under Article 39(d)?
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that each service has its own pay structure, and the last drawn pay must be computed within the context of the new services scale. Retroactive enhancements from a previous service do not justify upward distortion in a new service, thereby preserving the integrity of Article 39(d) and preventing a cascade of similar claims.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed.
ORDER
This special leave petition is filed against the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal at Cuttack passed on December 6, 1996, in Transfer Application No. 610/87.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner, while working as a Lecturer, had appeared in competitive examination and was selected to the Orissa Administrative Service. As Orissa Administrative Service, Class-II, his scale of pay was Rs. 525-1150/-. Earlier, also when he worked as Lecturer, the scale of pay was Rs. 525-1150/- which was subsequently revised by the University Grants Commission w.e.f. April 1, 1974 to Rs. 700-1600/-. In that pay scale, his pay fixed at Rs. 780. He was paid arrears of salary with retrospective effect from 1.1.1974. After he was selected and appointed to the Orissa Administrative Service, he sought protection of his last drawn pay and his upgraded fitment in the pay scale in the Orissa Administrative Service. The Tribunal has rejected the claim. Thus this special leave petition.
3. Shri Janaranjan Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that since the petitioner had been given the pay scale with retrospective effect from 1.1.1974, on his appointment to the Orissa Administrative Service, his last drawn pay need to be protected. As per the instructions of the Accountant General, his pay is entitled to be fixed at Rs. 780/- in the pay scale in the service of Orissa Administrative Service. We find no force in the contention. The service as a Lecturer is entirely different from the service of the Orissa Administrative Service. Merely because he happened to work earlier as a Lecturer and in the same pay scale which was subsequently revised, he cannot be permitted to have the benefit of U.G.C. scale in the Administrative Service and fitment in the pay-scale on that basis. That would create imbalance and gross infraction and distortion and would result in flood of claims of similarly situated persons under Article 39(d) of the Constitution. Under these circumstances, such a course cannot be permitted to be adopted.
4. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
SLP dismissed.
********