P.C. LAL Vs. CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant's writ petition claiming higher pay in terms of the Government Order No. G -1 -1139 (i)/X -142 -1965 dated 1st August, 1969.

(2.) THE Appellants are working as Lower Division Assistants In this Court in the pay scale of Rs. 120 -250/. One M.N. Rai Was a routine grade clerk in the High Court in the scale of Rs. 100 -180/ -. On 2nd November, 1970 Rai was also promoted to the grade of lower division Assistants, the grade in which the Appellants had already been confirmed. On his promotion his salary was fixed at Rs. 190/ - per month under Fundamental Rule 22 -B. This salary turned out to be higher than the salary of the Appellants who were admittedly senior to Rai in the cadre of lower division assistants. This created an anomaly, viz. that Rai being junior started drawing salary higher than the Appellants who were senior. Most of the Appellants made representation to Hon'ble the Chief Justice demanding that their salary be increased to the salary given to Rai in accordance with Government Order No. G -1 -1139 (i)/X -142 -1965 dated 1st August, 1969 which says that where the salary of a junior on promotion is fixed at a figure higher than the salary drawn by the senior members of the cadre, the salary of the senior members should also be increased to bring it at par with the salary of the junior. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice called for a report from the Additional Registrar of the High Court who suggested the following three alternatives:

(3.) NOW it is not disputed that the conditions Nos. 1 and 2 are satisfied. The dispute relates to the condition No. 3. It is again not disputed that the disparity in the pay of Rai and of the Appellants arose when the former was promoted to the grade of lower division assistant. He was previously a routine grade clerk, It is also not disputed that the Appellants are all senior to Rai in the cadre of lower division assistant. What is urged on be -half of the Respondents and what appealed to the learned Single Judge is that Rai, before he joined the High Court ministerial staff was working in the office of the Police Headquarters and was drawing a higher salary in the scale of Rs. 60 -100/ -. His initial pay on his appointment to the ministerial staff of the High Court was fixed at a higher figure because his previous service and pay were also taken into consideration. It is said that because of this initial discrepency the pay of Mr. Rai came to be fixed at a figure higher than the pay drawn by the Appellants when he was promoted to the cadre of lower division assistant. Therefore, the grant of a higher salary to him was not solely due to the operation of Fundamental Rule 22 -B. This approach in our opinion, is not correct. When Rai was appointed routine grade Clerk in the High Court, the Appellants were already working in the cadre of lower division assistants. Their pay scales were different. Therefore, even if Rai got a higher start in the scale of routine grade clerks it did not create any anomaly, as the Appellants were in a different scale. The anomaly arose when Rai was also promoted to the cadre of lower division Assistants and his salary turned out to be higher than the salary of the Appellants who were senior to him. Rai and the Appellants were now in the same cadre and in the same grade but Rai being a junior was drawing higher salary and it is this type of anomaly which the Government wanted to set right. It may be noticed that the disparity, if any, in the salaries of Rai and the Appellants, which existed before Rai was promoted to the cadre of lower division assistant could not be set right under the Government Order in question because of the conditions Nos. 1 and 2 which say that the anomaly must arise when the junior and senior are in the same cadre and grade. Even, therefore, if Rai was drawing higher salary when he was routine grade clerk, the same could not give rise to any cause of action to the Appellants. But the moment he was absorbed in the higher grade to which the Appellants belong, the disparity in their salary could no longer be tolerated. We are of the opinion that the immediate cause for the anomaly is the promotion of Rai to the post of lower division assistant and the fixation of his initial salary in terms of Fundamental Rule 22 -B. His initial salary while he was routine grade clerk is absolutely irrelevant. The latter part of condition No. 3 is also not applicable because Rai has not been given a higher salary because of any advance increment. He has been given higher salary because of the operation of Fundamental Rule 22 -B. For all these reasons we are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge and we hold that the Appellants were entitled to the re -fixation of their salary equal to the salary of Rai in accordance with G.O. dated 1st August, 1969.