JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission, as modified, were made effective from 1.1.1986. The pay of the Government employees in the revised pay-scale, as recommended, was to be fixed as per CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “Revised Pay Rules”). The petitioners herein are aggrieved that their pay is not properly fixed. They filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, but without any success, as vide judgment dated 25.2.2004, the said application has been dismissed. By means of the present petition, they assail the decision of the Tribunal.
2. All the petitioners are serving on Electronic Data Processing (EDP) Post in the Data Processing Division of National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) under the Ministry of Statistics, Government of India. As on 1.1.1986, they were holding the post of Data Processing Assistants. They were given a particular pay-scale by the Government on the implementation of 4th Central Pay Commission with which these EDPs were not satisfied. The legal battle went up to the Supreme Court and ultimately, as per the directions of the Apex Court, they were held entitled to a better scale of pay, i.e. Rs.1600-2660. The pay of these petitioners was accordingly fixed by the Government in the aforesaid pay-scale.
In fact, it is not even in dispute that the pay is not properly fixed under the Revised Pay Rules. The fight is over grant of next increment on the date it becomes due in the pre-revised scale. Whereas the petitioners contend that whenever next increment falls due in the pre-revised pay-scale after 1.1.1986, that shall be added. Proviso (1) to Rule 8 of the Revised Pay Rules disallows the grant of such an increment. Therefore, the petitioners want striking down of the said proviso as discriminatory. It is because of this reason, the petitioners had claimed the following reliefs in their OA filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal:
(1) strike down the proviso 1 to Rule 8 as which disallows the next increment on the date it becomes due in the pre-revised scale as being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
(2) Declare that the benefit of Rule 8(1) should be available to not only those falling under Rule 7(1) but also those who fall under Rule 7(1), Note 3, so that the applicants also become entitled to the next increment on the date it falls during the pre-revised scale of pay.
(3) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(4) Award costs of the present proceedings to the applicants.
3. Thus, it is not in dispute that if proviso (1) to Rule 8 remains in the Rule Book, the petitioners would not be entitled to the next increment, as demanded by them. The question is as to whether this hurdle coming in their way can be removed by striking down the proviso as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
4. Rule 7 of the Revised Pay Rules deals with fixation of initial pay in the revised scale and Rule 8 talks of the date of next increment in the revised scale. Since there were 19 stages of increment in the pre-revised scale of Rs.330-560 and the new pay-scale started from Rs.1600/-, for fixing the pay in the revised pay-scale, as per Note 3 to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Revised Pay Rules, bunching was to be done and increments were to be granted in the following manner:
(a) by granting one increment to those drawing pay from 6th up to the 10th stage of the said scale;
(b) by granting two increments to those drawing pay from 11th up to 15th stage of the said scale; and
(c) by granting three increments to those drawing pay from 16th up to 20th stage of the said scale.
Note 3 beneath Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 providing for this bunching and Rule 8 regarding the grant of next increment in the revised pay-scale read as under:
Note 3 – Where in the fixation of pay under Sub-rule (1) the pay of Government Servant drawing pay at more than five consecutive stages in an existing scale gets Bunched that is to say, gets fixed in the revised scale at the same stage, the pay in Revised scale of such (of) these government servants who are drawing pay beyond the first five consecutive stages in the existing scale shall be stepped up to the stage where such bunching occurs, as under by the grant of increment(s) in the revised scale in the following manner, namely:
(a) for Govt. Servants pay from 6th up to the 10th stage in the existing scale ” By one increment,
(b) for Govt. Servants drawing pay from the 11th up to the 15th stage in the existing scale, if there is bunching beyond the 10th stage ” By two increments,
(c) for Govt. Servants drawing pay from the 16th up to the 20th stage in the existing scale, if there is bunching beyond the 15th stage ” By three increments.”
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners, as per Rule 7, got the benefit of weightage for seniority, i.e. bunching, and such of those who had put in 5 years of service were granted one increment, those having more than 10 years of service were granted two increments and officials with more than 15 years of service were granted three increments in the revised scale with effect from 1.1.1986. Rule 8 provides that a Government servant, whose pay has been revised in accordance with Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, is to be granted his next increment in the revised pay-scale on the date he would have drawn such increment had he continued in the existing scale. This rule, thus, protects the date of increment which falls in a routine manner. However, proviso to this Rule makes a departure and stipulates that in those cases where because of weightage of seniority/bunching as per Note 3 (or Note 4 or Note 7) to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, a Government servant has got the advantage of increments, his next increment would be granted only on completion of the qualifying service of 12 months from the date of stepping up of pay in the revised pay-scale. The working of this Rule can be demonstrated by giving the following example:
(i) Take the case of a Government employee whose normal date of increment is 1st April in the pre-revised scale – Such a person earned the increment on 1.4.1995. Thereafter, his pay was revised under the Revised Pay Rules and pay in the revised scale is fixed after applying the formula laid down in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7. However, he had not reached, in the pre-revised pay-scale, the 6th stage. Therefore, while fixing his pay, as per Note 3, he was not given any benefit of the increments. In his case, in revised scale, the next increment would be given to him on 1.4.1986, which is the date on which he would have drawn his increment had he continued in the existing scale.
(ii) Now take the case of another Government servant whose next increment in the existing scale also falls due on 1st April. However, if he had rendered more than 5 years or 10 years or 15 years service in the pre-revised scale, while fixing his pay under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, he would have also got the benefit of 1,2 or 3 increments, as the case may be. In his case, as per proviso to Rule 8, he would not draw the next increment in the revised scale on 1.4.1986, but his increment would become due on completion of the qualifying service of 12 months from the date of stepping up of pay, i.e. on 1.1.1987.
6. All these petitioners had the benefit of bunching and they admittedly got 1 or 2 or 3 increments while fixing their pay in the revised pay-scale as on 1.1.1986. Therefore, they are not given the increments on the date they would have drawn such increment in the existing pay-scale, but were given the next increment after expiry of 12 months, i.e. on 1.1.1987. In this manner, their date of increment stands shifted to 1st January of each successive year. This is termed by the petitioners as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
7. The submission of the petitioners is that under Note 3 of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, the stepping up in their pay-scale by grant of increments in the revised scale was given acknowledging their seniority and what is given under Rule 7 is sought to be taken away by the operation of proviso to Rule 8, which should not be permitted.
8. We hardly see any merit in such a contention. It is not that the petitioners are denied the benefit of their normal increment. In their case the date of increment stands changed and is shifted to a period 12 months after the completion of service from the date of fixing of pay in the new scale and for valid reasons. All these petitioners were granted increment(s) on 1.1.1986, albeit, by virtue of Note 3 under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7. After granting them increment(s) on 1.1.1986 while revising their pay, if the Government decided to give them the next increment after completion of 12 months there from, which is the normal period for earning next increment, we do not find any fault with such an approach which necessitated introduction of proviso to Rule 8. The Department had justified the inclusion of proviso to Rule 8 of Revised Pay Rules also on the ground that it was intended to eliminate the anomaly of junior Government servants drawing more pay than their seniors by operation of the substantive part of this Rule. Apart from the plea that what is sought to be given under Rule 7 is taken away by proviso to Rule 8, no other contention was raised in support of the plea that such a Rule was arbitrary. As far as this contention is concerned, it has no merit. In fact, the petitioners become the beneficiaries, inasmuch as, they got the increment(s) on 1.1.1986 itself though in normal course they were entitled to the next increment on a later date, i.e. the normal date of increment under the existing pay-scales, which was after 1.1.1986 in all these cases.
9. It was, however, sought to be pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioners that when the 5th Central Pay Commission was implemented with effect from 1.1.1996 and CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 were promulgated for fixation of the pay in the revised pay-scales, the Government realised such an anomaly and, therefore, a specific provision in the form of proviso (2) to Rule 7 under CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 was made to ensure granting of increment on the due date as well.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondent rightly pointed out that no such case was set up before the Tribunal. Even otherwise, that by itself may not help the petitioners. Merely because the Government decided to grant the benefit of next increment, in the revised scale, with effect from the date it would have fallen in the existing pay-scale would not mean that the earlier provision of a different nature would ipso facto be rendered as discriminatory. It is always open to the Government to create more beneficial provisions, which is achieved by the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997. However, the validity of proviso to Rule 8 under the Revised Pay Rules of 1986 cannot be judged on the touchstone of the 1997 Rules. These are the policy matters, decision whereof depends on various considerations, and it is for the Government to take such a decision having regard to those considerations. The Court can step in only if such a decision is found to be irrational or discriminatory. Merely because the Government has changed its earlier decision or has improved upon the earlier decision would not mean that the earlier decision was wrong in law.
11. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this petition and consequently the writ petition is dismissed.
No costs.