PETITIONER: CHANDER BHAN GILL Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT14/07/1994 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC (5) 328 JT 1994 (5) 432 1994 SCALE (3)285 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KULDIP SINGH, J.- Chander Bhan Gill (Gill) joined Central
Government service on 25-1-1985. The Central Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 (the Rules) came into force on
1-1-1986. On completion of one year’s service Gill was
granted annual increment in the existing scale (unrevised).
His claim for grant of annual increment in the revised pay
scale was rejected by the Government. Gill challenged the
action of the Government by way of an application before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
(the Tribunal). The Tribunal by its judgment dated 13-4-
1992 dismissed the application. This appeal by Gill is
against the judgment of the Tribunal.
2. We may notice the necessary facts. Gill was selected
for appointment as Assistant (Legal) in the Department of
Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of
India. He joined the Ministry as such on 25-1-1985 in the
pay scale of 425-15-500-EB-15-560-20-700-EB-25-800. One
S.S. Dhaiya was also selected and appointed as Assistant
(Legal) along with the appellant. He joined service on 4-3-
1985 in the same pay scale.
3. The existing pay scale for the post of Assistant
(Legal) (425-800) was revised to 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900
under the Rules with effect from 1-1-1986. Gill completed
one year’s service on 26-1-1986 and became entitled to the
grant of an annual increment. The short question for
consideration is whether he was entitled to the increment in
the revised scale of pay (Rs 60) or in the unrevised scale
(Rs 15).
4. The Government of India Instructions contained in the
office memorandum dated 7-1-1971 are as under:
“The undersigned is directed to invite a
reference on the recommendation of the Third
Pay Commission contained in para 29 of Chapter
8 in Volume I of their Report to the effect
that in future, an increment should be granted
from the 1st of the month in which it falls
due instead of from the actual date on which
it accrues, and to say that
330
Government have accepted the aforesaid
recommendation of the Commission vide Item No.
5 in the annexure appended to the Resolution
No. 70(34)-Imp. Cell dated 1- 11- 1973. The
sanction of the President is accordingly
conveyed hereby to the increment of employees
being admitted from the 1 St of the month in
which it would fall due under the operation of
the general rules and orders regulating
increments.
2. These orders shall take effect from 11
1- 1973 and shall cover only Central
Government employees in Classes 11, III and
IV.”
5. The Government of India issued office memorandum dated 4-
5-1987 i wherein various clarifications in respect of the
Rules were given. The clarification at Serial No. 1 of the
memorandum, which is relevant, is as under:
———————————————————-
"SI. Points raised Clarifications
No.
———————————————————–
(1) (2) (3)
———————————————————–
1. In case of a government Increment in the Pre-
servant whose increment revised scale is to be
accrued in the pre-revised allowed first on 1-1-
scale on 1-1-1986, whether 1986 and pay fixed in
the increment in the pre- in the revised scale
revised scale is to be allo- therefore.
wed first and pay fixed in
the revised scale under CCS
(RP) Rules 1986 latter or pay
fixed in the revised scale
first and increment allowed
latter in the revised scale.”
6. The appellant completed one year’s service on
26-1-1986 and as such an increment accrued to him on the
said date but keeping in view the Government instructions
dated 7-1-1971 he was to be given the increment from 1-1-
1986. Relying upon the clarification dated 4-5-1987 the
Government of India granted the increment to the appellant
in the pre-revised scale. Rs 15 were added to his basic
pre-revised pay of Rs 425 thereby making a total of Rs 440.
After doing the exercise of granting him increment in the
pre-revised scale he was given the revised pay scale and his
basic pay on 1-1-1986 was fixed as Rs 1640.
7. It is not necessary for us to go into the question as
to whether the clarification dated 4-5-1987 is contrary to
the Rules. The clarifications are, ordinarily, issued with
a view to remove the anomalies in the working of the Rules.
In the facts of this case, however, the clarification has
rather created an anomaly. We see no logic in the
clarification. It is applicable only to the government
servants whose increment accrued on 1-1-1986. All those who
earned the increment any time between 1-2-1986 to 31-12-1986
were given the increment in the revised scale. Had the
appellant joined in the month of February 1985 or thereafter
he would have got the increment in the revised scale. As
mentioned above S.S. Dhaiya was selected and appointed along
with the appellant. He joined on 4-3-1985 and was given his
annual increment with effect from 1-3-1986 in the revised
scale. The Government
331
action based on the clarification dated 4-5-1987 has
obviously worked to the detriment of the appellant.
8. We may examine the appellant’s claim under the Rules.
Rules 5, 6(3), 7 and 8 of the Rules, to the extent relevant,
are reproduced hereunder:
“5. Drawal of pay in the revised scales.-
Save as otherwise provided in these rules, a
government servant shall draw pay in the
revised scale applicable to the post to which
he is appointed:
Provided that a government servant may elect
to continue to draw pay in the existing scale
until the date on which he earns his next or
any subsequent increment in the existing scale
or until he vacates his post or ceases to draw
pay in that scale ….
6. Exercise of option.-
(3) If the intimation regarding option is not received
within the time mentioned in sub-rule (1), the government
servant shall be deemed to have elected to be governed by
the revised scale of pay with effect on and from the 1st day
of January, 1986.
7. Fixation of initial pay in the revised scale.- (1) The
initial pay of a government servant who elects, or is deemed
to have elected under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 to be governed
by the revised scale on and from the 1st day of January,
1986, shall, unless in any case the President by special
order otherwise directs, be fixed separately in respect of
his substantive pay in the permanent post on which he holds
a lien or would have held a lien if it had not been
suspended, and in respect of his pay in the officiating post
held by him, in the following manner, namely-
(A) in the case of employees,-
(i) an amount representing 20 per cent of
the basic pay in the existing scale, subject
to a minimum of Rs 75, shall be added to the
‘existing emoluments’ of the employee;
(ii) after the existing emoluments have been
so increased, the pay shall thereafter be
fixed in the revised scale at the stage next
above the amount thus computed:
Provided that,-
(a) if the minimum of the revised scale is
more than the amount so arrived at, the pay
shall be fixed at the minimum of the revised
scale;
(b) if the amount so arrived at is more than
the maximum of the revised scale, the pay
shall be fixed at the maximum of that scale.
8. Date of next increment in the revised scale.- The next
increment of a government servant whose pay has been fixed
in the revised scale in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule
7 shall be granted on the date he would have drawn his
increment had he continued in the existing scale:
332
9. It is not disputed that the appellant did not give any
option under Rule 5 of the Rules and as such under Rule 6(3)
he became entitled to the revised scale of pay “with effect
on and from the 1st day of January, 1986”. Since the
minimum of the revised scale of the appellant was more than
the amount worked out under Rule 7(1)(A)(i)(ii) he became
entitled under Rule 7(1)(A)(a) to be fixed at the minimum of
the revised scale. It is clear from the combined reading of
Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules that the appellant was entitled
to be fixed at Rs 1640 as his basic pay with effect from
1-1-1986 in the revised scale. The pre-revised scale ceased
to operate on 31-12-1985. Rule 8 of the Rules clearly lays
down that “the next increment of a government servant whose
pay has been fixed in the revised scale in accordance with
sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 shall be granted on the date he would
have drawn his increment, had he continued in the existing
scale”. The language of the rule makes it clear that the
appellant, whose annual increment became due on 1-1-1986,
was entitled to the grant of the said increment in the
revised pay scale. We are, therefore, of the view that the
appellant-Gill was entitled to the grant of Rs 60 as
increment with effect from 1-1-1986 and his basic pay in the
revised scale should have been fixed at Rs 1700 from 11-
1986.
10. We allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the
Tribunal. We allow the application filed by Gill before the
Tribunal in the above terms. We direct the respondents to
fix the pay of the appellant as Rs 1700 with effect from 11
– 1986 and give him all the consequential benefits. This
should be done within three months from the date of the
receipt of this judgment. The appellant shall be entitled
to his costs which we quantify as Rs 10,000.
333