TOMY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was a pay revision in tune with the pay scale suggested by the University Grants Commission to be effective from 1.1.1996 in the case of teachers of the Private and Government Colleges. It was effected with retrospective effect from 1.1.1996 with a condition that arrears arising out of such retrospective pay revision shall be deposited in the provident fund account of each of the incumbent. Therefore, the order of revision of salary and for remitting the arrears in the provident fund account are parts of a composite order. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot opt to accept one part of that order for increase in salary and denounce the other part for deposit. Petitioners can either accept it in toto and denounce in toto. Therefore, the challenge against that part of the order directing deposit of the amount in provident fund account alone cannot be accepted. On that short ground the challenge fails.

(2.) If the Government has power to order revision with retrospective effect, Government can also pass orders regulating disbursement of arrears due to such retrospective revision. So, the petitioners cannot contend that Government has no power to issue orders regarding deposit of arrears.

(3.) Payment of interest shall be governed by the rate of interest in money market as regulated by the Reserve Bank and in relation to the type of deposit. When deposit is to be made in the provident fund interest payable for such deposit alone can be paid. Petitioners cannot seek 18% interest. The petitioners have also not shown or placed any details where such rate of interest is paid for any safe and secure deposit.