KUNNASHADA MUTHUKOYA Vs. ADMINISTRATOR U T OF LAKSHADWEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was promoted as a lineman, a group 'c' post, in the lakshadweep Electricity department, on 2. 2. 1985. The pay scale of lineman was initially Rs. 85-2-95-3-110 which was revised to Rs. 210-4-226-EB-4-250-EB-5-290. The pay scale was further revised to Rs. 800-15-1010-EB-20-1150 as per Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 (for short 'revised Pay Rules' ). The appellant gave a representation dated 1. 10. 1994 requesting a higher pay scale. He contended that as the post of lineman was classified as a group C post, he should be given the benefit of the minimum of the pay scales prescribed for group 'c' posts under the Revised Pay rules, that is Rs. 825-15-900-EB-20-1200.

(2.) BY Office Memorandum dated 9. 8. 1995 the respondent rejected the representation of appellant for grant of the higher pay scale of Rs. 825-1200. The said memorandum stated that though the post of lineman was a group 'c' post, the revised pay scale applicable to the said post was that which corresponded to pre-revision pay-scale of Rs. 210-290 drawn by linemen and therefore appellant was entitled only to the revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1150. It was also stated that the duties and responsibilities of linemen in the electricity Department differed substantially from linemen in other departments (that is Linemen/wireman in telecommunications, Postmen/ mailguards in Postal department etc.); that the Fourth Pay Commission had recommended the higher pay scale of Rs. 825-15-900-EB-20-1200 only for linemen and wiremen in the Telecommunication Department on the specific condition that their recruitment qualifications should be raised; and that the revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1150 given to the appellant was therefore in accordance with the fourth pay commission's recommendations.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that if the ratio of Hariharan is applied, the appellant's claim is liable to be rejected. But he contended that the decision in Hariharan should be considered as having been rendered per incurium, as it ignores Rule 5 of the Revised Pay Rules. Relying on the decisions of this Court in Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M. P. [2004 (7) SCC 558] and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra [2005 (2) SCC 673], he submitted that a decision rendered per incurium is not a binding precedent. According to the appellant, having regard to Rule 5 of the Revised Pay Rules, the revision of pay of a government servant should be with reference to the class of post held by him and not with reference to the pay scale earlier applicable to him. He therefore contended that as the appellant held a Group 'c' post, the pay scale applicable to Group 'c' government servants should be extended to him.