A.J Joseph vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 January, 1996

0
36
Supreme Court of India
A.J Joseph vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 January, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1010, 1996 SCC (7) 392
Author: K Ramaswamy
Bench: Ramaswamy, K.
           PETITIONER:
A.J JOSEPH

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:	08/01/1996

BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:
 1996 AIR 1010		  1996 SCC  (7) 392
 JT 1996 (1)   561	  1996 SCALE  (1)479


ACT:



HEADNOTE:



JUDGMENT:

O R D E R
Leave granted.

This appeal is filed against the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench dated March 11, 1987
made in ND OA No.12/A&N/87. The appellant claimed higher
scale of pay as Head Compounder. Though the Health
Department in Adaman & Nicobar Island had recommended to
consider his case for grant of special pay, the Government
after elaborate consideration in proceedings dt. April 21,
1976 considered that question of prescribing any higher
scale of pay for the post of Head Compounder.

Ms. Lily Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant relying upon Fundamental Rule 9(25) Clause 7(iii)
contended that the appellant is entitled to the special pay
on par with others which is being denied to the appellant.
Shri A.N. Jayaram, the learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the respondents stated that this grievance was
not made by the appellant at any point of time. As a fact
all those who are working in Andaman & Nicobar Island, as
per the Fundamental Rules, are being paid Andaman special
pay and the appellant is not discriminated on that account.
Accepting the contention of the counsel for the respondents,
we are of the considered view that the grievance of the
appellant is not well founded. It is needless to mention
that whatever direction that have been given by the
Government of India under the Fundamental Rules for payment
of special pay to the employees working in Andaman & Nicobar
Island, they are entitled for the same and accordingly such
special pay be paid to all the eligible persons including
the appellant.

The appeal is dismissed with the above observations.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here