Cases Referred:

Advocates Appeared:
A.P.AGGARWAL, MADAN LOKUR, Maninder Kaur, MUKUL ROHTAGI

B. N. Kirpal

( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the non-fixation of the pay of the petitioner pursuant to the report of the Foutti Pay Commi- ssion.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in Class-IV employee of this Court and is working as an Usher in the pay-scale of Rs. 30u-43u. This petition appears to have been filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all the Class-1 V employees of this Court, who are Peons, crashes, Safai-Walas, Daftries, Jamadars, Junior Library Attendants, Records Sorters and Junior Gestetner Operators. This judgment will, therefore, be applicable to all these and other Class-IV employees of this Court.

( 3 ) PRIOR to the Third Pay Commission Report, these employees were in the pay-scales ranging from Rs. 196-232 to Rs. 210-270. The petitioner herein filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 2236/86, inter alia, praying that the pay of Class-IV employees of this Court should be fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 300-430 inasmuch as similar employees in the High Court of Punjabi Haryana were drawing their salaries in this pay-scale of Rs. 300-430.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid petition was allowed by this Court vide Judgment dated 4th December, 1986. The Union of India filed a Special Leave Petition being No. 5002/87 and on 1st May, 1987 the Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP.

( 5 ) AS a result of the aforesaid decision the petitioner and other Class-IV employees got their pay fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 300-430 w. e. f. 1st January, 1978.

( 6 ) THE Central Government had constituted the Fourth Pay Commission. The said Commission gave its report which made the scales recommended by it applicable w. e. f. 1st January, 1986. The High Court, like the Supreme Court, was not covered by the said Pay Commission Report. As the pay-scales recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission, and accepted by the Central Government, are also applied to the High Court by separate orders, the then Chief Justice of this Court on 8th March, 1988 wrote to the Minister of Law and Justice recommending different pay-scales for various categories of employees of this Court. In respect of the Class-IV employees the recommendation of the Chief Justice was that they should be placed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540. This was, according to the Chief Justice, the scale which was corresponding to the existing pay-scale of Rs. 300-430.

( 7 ) THE Central Government wrote a letter dated 6th December, 1988 wherein it was, inter alia, stated that revision of pay-scales regarding L. D. Cs, Restorers and other Class-IV employees will be conveyed later on after a decision is taken by the Supreme Court in a case which was pending before It. The Central Government, however, accorded approval in respect of employees of this Court who were in a scale higher than that of the L. D. Cs.

( 8 ) TWO of the categories in respect of which pay had not been fixed because of the said letter were that of Restorers and L. D. Cs. They then filed a writ petition being C. Writ No. 3462/89, Rohtas Kumar and Others v. Union of India. One of the contentions raised by the Union of India was that the Supreme Court, had in respect of its own employees, yet to take decision with regard to scales of pay which should be applicable to them and, therefore, the pay of those petitioners could not be fixed Vide our judgment dated 9th October, 1990, this and the other contentions of the respondents, were rejected. It was, inter alia, held that the Supreme Court was concerned with its own employees and far as the High Court employees were concerned, their pay-scales had already been fixed, prior to the proposed revision w. e. f. 1st January, 1986, and after the Fourth Pay Commission Report, the equivalent scales of pay were to be made applicable to the High Court employees. The writ petition having been allowed, the respondents, once again, filed a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, once again, vide their order dated 21st January, 1991 dismissed the Special Leave Petition No. 151/91 filed by the Union of India. The effect of this was that the Restorers and LDCs of this Court, by virtue of this Court s judgment dated 9th October, 1990 were entitled to have their pay fixed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1350-2200.

( 9 ) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the present case is that an appropriate writ be issued directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner and other Class-IV employees in the appropriate scale of pay. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner cannot ask for fixation in a scale different than the one which is recommended by the Chief Justice of this Court. In view of the judgment of this Court in Rohtaskumarss case (supra), no serious argument has been advanced that because of non-fixation of the scales of pay of the Supreme Court employees fixation of the High Court employees pay cannot be effected.

( 10 ) IN our opinion the pay-scale of the petitioner of Rs. 300-430 not being in dispute, having been finally settled by the Supreme Court, the respondents were under an obligation to determine and appropriate revised scale of pay in respect to the Class-IV employees of this Court. It is indeed a pity that though the revised pay-scale had been made applicable to the employees of the Government and other Departments w. e. f. 1st January, 1986, more than five years have elapsed but there has been no fixation with regard to the lowest rung of the employees of this Court viz,, these who are in Class-IV.

( 11 ) IN our opinion it cannot be disputed that the pay-scale of the Class-IV employees has to be determined pursuant to the Fourth Pay Commission Report. The said Report has been made applicable by the Government itself to the other employees of. this Court and there is no reason as to why Class-IV employees should be excluded. In fact in the letter of the Union of India of 6th December, 1988 it lias not been stated that appropriate scale will not be given to the petitioner but what has been stated is that the Government will take a decision only after the matter in the Supreme Court was decided. Thegovernment,ln our opinion, has failed to discharge its duty. It was incumbent upon the Government specially in view of our decision in Rohtas Kumar s case (supra) to fix appropriate pay-scales in the case of all the employees of this Court who had not so far been covered by the Fourth Pay Commission Report recommendation. We have, therefore, no alternative but to issue appropriate directions in this regard.

( 12 ) THE only question which requires determination now is as to what is the appropriate scale which should be applied to the Class-IV employees A already noted, the then Chief Justice had recommended the revised scale of pay of Rs. 975-25-1150-EB-30-1540 which is Model 8 the compilation of in the Report. This Model 8 scale has been equated with two existing pre-revised scales. These two pre-revised pay-scales were of Ra. 260-8-340-10-430 and Rs. 290-6-326-8-350-EB-8-39010-400. As already noted, the petitioner was in the existing pay-scale of Rs. 300-10-430. The start of the scale viz. . Rs. 300. 00 is more than both the aforesaid existing scales which have already been equated with the revised scale of Rs. 975-1540. We further find that there is an existing scale in Model 9 of Rs. 260. 8-300-EB-8-340-10-360-12-420-EB-12-480 which has been equated with the revised scale of Rs. 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660. The start of both the revised scales in Models 8 and 9 is the same viz. , Rs, 975. 00 The difference is only towards top of the scale. Whereas in Model 8 the maximum of the scale is Rs. 1540, in Model 9 the maximum is Rs. 1660. 00. The petitioner and other Class-J V employees are in the pay-scale of Rs. 300-430. The start of the pay-scale is higher than the existing scales which have been equated to the revised scales in Model 8 and 9. In our opinion it will be appropriate if the petitioner and other Class-IV employees are given the revised scale of Model 9 viz. . Rs. 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660. It is ture that the maximum of the pre-revised scale is lesser than the scale of Rs. 260-480 which has been equated with the revised scale in Model 9 but in the absence of there being an equivalent scale to Rs. 300-430 we had to undertake the exercise in order to see as to which is the nearer and most appropriate revised scale which should be applicable to Class-IV employees. In Models 7, 8 and 9 the minimum of the pre-existing scale was less than Rs. 300. 00. It is only in Model 10 that the minimum of the pre-existing scale was more, i. e. Rs. 330. 00. The nearest, therefore, in our opiaion, to the pre-existing scale of Rs. 300-430 would bs the revised scale of Rs. 975-1660 in Model 9.

( 13 ) THE petitioner and the other Class-IV employees should have got their pay fixed ia the revised pay-scale of Rs. 975-1660 w. e. f. 1st January, 1986 For no fault of the petitioner aid other Class-IV employees they have been deprived of the money which was due to them. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to two decisions of the Supreme Court in AIR 1985 SC 356 and AIR 1989 Vol. 3 Judgment Today 637. In both these cases while awarding money the Supreme Court directed interest to be paid. The first case was where pension had to bs paid and the Supreme Court directed interest to be paid alongwith arrears of pension. The second case was where the Life Insurance Corporation had to pay the policy money and for the wrongful withholding of the money they were directed to pay 15^ per annum interest.

( 14 ) IN our opinion in the present case also the petitioner and the other Class-IV employees should be entitled to receive interest on the arrears of salary. Taking the clue from the LIC case we direct that the petitioner and other Class-IV employees of this Court should get interest @ 15/o per annum.

( 15 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner and other Class-IV employees of this Court in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 in accordance with the Central Civil Services (revised pay) Rules 1986. This pay should be fixed by the respondents within two months from today and arrears, if any, should be paid to the petitioner and other Class-IV employees alongwith interest @ 15 % per annum within one month thereafter. The interest will be with effect from 6th December, 1988 when the Government wrote the letter not fixing the revised scale of Class-IV employees of this Court, till the date of payment.

( 16 ) THERE will be no order as to costs.