j^e^K^s^. ^ li&i£ EtfV.^-£ 4 &i.s4Js. lh£ •fr : J.flUsy. J^ ^iak^iteLi 1 ^ 116&" BS^S^ 4 ^i^ lh£ -& ; laifey. IA jAAiAy.jjz -s - iy. ^ Ifitife cfc^. ^ . lAAiifey.Lfe MgJJa lii£ Sa-3^ 2fe& QVa^. M^iyJ^pa ^ 1^-Ua &i'^K lifey.J.tz iakL&Lb^A£ — (o^: oia.) ilAiay. i.^fahl CfrJ l2^L& fite^fas.lie ib S&k. »l&^ is4ife A81fe& -i filhLlt i-ft.l.R o^ oh Jiihy. 1AL&& ^a lifc.hyp B&^ - & "»> ©iHfaii&iK o^. oh '^y& t^£ illS .1& oK oh ^Mlifcy-Uz o£ ofa llAJJ. loy. 4^1.^ ofe 1& - l^UiA B.IM^L Jili*y. LJ3l&& <Afe Li^ t4.3^ ^ i21K' 'auaA siHMtit 4M Ate.ie aLb^p &i±KMA liafeil Ihti •ihBiey. l. Mii.^ &iy. /. ^" '^ .(X', o£ob ILbll '2yi&a& lal&ty.lt^ AyAUaJS <:0^hS'C^'5l^^ ott HJ^lii J ^) ^/J- ••'•^sr-asae"..' li^^B&flrSTi"'Basli':]; ^.^••":^^ '•<7r iyi':s^\ ,3i1 '3 %;-,. -II / ^p-f^- /.^.2o/0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. Writ Petition (S) No.2543/2005 PETITIONER Suraj Prakash Agrawal Versus RESPONDENTS State of M.P. (now C.G.) and others ORDER POST ON /i^PRIL. 2010 SdJ- ^v'9\^swv ^a'^A<a"5^e (^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (S) No. 2543/2005 Suraj Prakash Agrawal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) 85 two others. Appearance: Shri S.P, Kale, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on ( . 4 .2010) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved on account of fixation of pay in various pay-scales, payable to Government servant from time to time under various pay revision rules. 2.1t needs to be noticed that the petitioner has filed this petidon on 8.6.1998, whereas petitioner retired on 28.2.1994 while working as Assistant Engineer in the Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh. 8. Facts relevant and necessary for adjudication of controversy involved are that petitioner was initially appointed on 6.3.1956 as Sub Engineer in the Water Resources Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. While continuing in service, drawing pay-scale of Rs.280-480/-, Faquirchand Pay-Scale 1977 was granted to fhose belonging to ^a^'^ ~<1)l '"l&ii. ""?'% -2- d^ Engineering Services w.e.f. 1.4.1977 under GAD memo dated 2nd August 1983. The petidoner belonging to Engineering Services was benefited by grant of Faquirchand Pay-Sclae of Rs.450-820/- and his basic was fixed at Rs.675/- on 1.4.1977 with admissible increments froin time to tiine. Under the aforesaid scale of pay, petitioner's basic pay reached at Rs.850/-on 6.2.1981. 4. At this stage, revision of pay on the recommendation of Choudhaiy Pay Commission was enforced by promulgating the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 (henceforth "the Rules of 1983'}, coinmonly known as Choudhary Pay-Scale. Pay of the petitioner in the Choudhary Pay-Scale took place w.e.f. 1.4.1981. For the purposes of making fixation of pay in the revised Choudhary Pay-Scale under the Rules of 1983, respondents fixed the pay of the petitioner with reference to the pay of the petidoner had he been continuing in Pandey Pay- Scale admissible for the post of Assistant Engineer. 5. FKation of pay in the Choudhary Pay-Scale was followed by subsequent fixation in new Pay-Scale, known as Vora Pay-Scale which was admissible w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Later on, Central Pay-Scale were given effect to and benefit extended w.e.f. l.1.1986. Thematerial on record does not show that fixation of pay done in the Choudhary, Vora & Central Pay-scales was ever disputed by the petitioner. 6. At fhe fag end of his service, fixation of pay in Choudhary Pay-Scale otherwise settled long back, was reopened and the Chief Engineer, Water Recourses Department, Bilaspur changed the earlier pay fixation of the petitioner in Choudhary Pay-Scale onwards in the year 1992-93 which is reflected from Annexure A-2. This pay-fixation did not sfand scrutiny of S^^B .<... -•%, -3- the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts 8s Pension, who did not accept the same. 7. Pedtioner retired on 28.2.1994 upon attaining the age of superannuation. After more than 2 years of his retirement petitioner raised dispute with regard to fixation of pay. This is evident from representations dated 14.11.1996 (Annexure A-6), 18.11.1996 (Annexure A-7), 3.12.1996 (Annexure A-8), 3.2.1997 (Annexure A-3), 30.5.1997 (Annexure A-4), 30.7.1997 (Annexure A-5) and 3.2.1998 (Annexure A-10). 8. The grounds on which the claim raised by the petitioner rests are that the initial fDtation of pay in Choudhary Pay-Scale w.e.f. 1.4.1981 and thereafter on subsequent Pay-Scales was not correct and proper. The sanie was corrected by making proper fixation of pay in Choudhary Pay- Scale as on 1.4.1981, by the Chief Engineer in the year 1992-93, but the same was wrongly rejected by the office of Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts 85 Pension. According to the petitioner, the pay fixation in Choudhary Pay-Scale as done in 1993 was correctly based on taking his basic as Rs.620/- in Pandey Pay-Scale resulting in Rs.1370/- as his pay in Choudhary Pay-Scale. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Joint Director illegally changed the basic pay from 620 to 590 and petitioner s pay was incorrectly Qxed at Rs.1330/- in Choudhaiy Pay-Scale w.e.f. 1.4.1981. Petitioner further claims that his pay was liable to be fixed at Rs.1410/- by taking his basic pay in Pandey Pay-Scale as Rs.650/-. On this submission, petitioner claims that his pay was liable to be fixed in the Choudhary Pay-Scale w.e.f. 1.4.1981 in the manner as claimed above and, thereafter, consequent re-futation of pay-scale in subsequent revised pay-scale namely Vora Pay-Scale ete. is required to be done and all -^^TSS^K'SS^sS^t *^m .'..SiS -4- consequential benefits of arrears of pay consequent upon such re- fixation be also extended. Another submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that another Assistant Engineer namely Bankelal was throughout junior to the petitioner in service but while revising pay-scale of Bankelal, he was fixed at Rs.1410/- in the Choudhary Pay-Scale w.e.f. 1.4.1981, taking his basic pay as Rs.650/-. Petitioner therefore clairas that he was also entitled to the same benefit as was extended to Bankelal. To strengthen his case, petitioner has placed reliance on the Finance Department Circular of Govemment of M.P. No. D/1041/2422/74/R-II-IV dated 17.9.1974. 9. Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as, upon re-fixation of pay in the revised pay-scale, petitioner's junior was drawing higher pay, the anomaly ought to be removed by stepping up the pay of the petitioner to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post. Petitioner further prays that on such re-fixation of pay- scale he is entitled to appropriate amount of gratuity and interest and other consequential benefits. 10. Opposing the claim of the petitioner, case of the respondents is that petitioner was correctly fixed in the revised Choudhary Pay-Scale w.e.f. 1.4.1981 and consequent fixation on subsequent revision of pay-scale nainely Vora and Central Pay-Scale. It is submitted that the Chief Engineer was notjustified in revising pay fixation of the petitioner in 1993 at the fag end of service soon before his retirement conta-ary to what was earlier done long back. It is further submitted that the fixation of pay in therevised Choudhary Pay-Scale was correctly made and fixation ofpay of the petitioner at Rs.1330/- with Rs.620/- as basic pay under the existing -5- CT pay-scale was just and proper and in accordance with th-e provision contained in the Rules of 1983 (Choudhary Pay-ScaIe). ^eply to the second limb of petitioner's argument relating to alleged discrimination, it has been subraitted that Both Bankelal and petitioner were drawing pay at Rs.480/- in the year 1977. In July 1978, Bankelal was promoted as Canal Deputy Collector (a Gazetted post). His pay was fixed at Rs.530/-. At this stage, Bankelal reached to higher pay-scale and this difference was maintained. As such, petitioner is not correct in seeking to draw parity with Bankelal that too 20 years after the date when cause of action arose. / Further submission of the respondents is that the petitioner accepted pay in the revised pay-scale as granted to him from time to time without i any dispute and thereby acquiesced in the action of respondents. It is also contended that the claim of the petitioner whether it be with regard to fixation of pay in the Choudhary Pay-Scale or claim based on parity with Bankelal, both are barred by delay and laches. 11. Petitioner does not dispute that while he was continuing in service and drawing pay in the Pandey Pay-Scale of Rs.280-480/-, he was benefited by Faquirchand Pay-Scale and was fixed in that pay-scale 440-820 at Rs.675/- on 1.4.1977. Ity ^is also admitted fact that the petitioner was promoted as Assistant En^ineer on 5.1.1980. Petitio(iers claims that his pay was liable to be fixed at Rs.1410/- in Choudhary Pay-Scale by assuming his basic pay in Pandey Pay-Scale as Rs.650/- is founded on the submission that as he was drawing pay in Faquirchand Pay-Scale, for the purposes of assuming his pay in Pandey Pay-Scale, the formula as prescribed in Table No.3 in the matter of fixation of pay from Pandey to Faquirchand Pay-Scale ought to have been taken as basis. This •^ -6- (^ contention of the petitioner has no merit. Petitioner is entitled to claim fixation of pay in the revised pay-scale only in accordance with the provision contained in the applicable Revision of Pay Rules and not otherwise. 12. In order to give effect to recoinmendations of Choudhaiy Pay Commission, statutory rues were framed by the Governor in exercise of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India known as M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983. This rules deemed to have corae into force on the 1st Day of April 1981, regulated grant ofrevised pay-scale. A Governinent servant to whom this rules are applicable is entitled to claim revision of pay. Any claim for revision of pay outside the provisions of the rules is not enforceable under the law. In the entire petition, while claiming that the petitioner was entitled to be fixed at Rs.1410/- in Choudhary Pay-Scale by assuming his basic pay as Rs.650/-, there are no pleadings with reference to the provisions of the statutory rules nor any reference to formula statutorily prescribed under the Rules of 1983. Without reference to the provisions of law, all that has been stated is that while reverting the petitioner from Faquirchand to Pandey Pay-Scale for the purpose of fixation of pay in Choudhary Pay-Scale, pay conversion formula in the matter of grant of Paquirchand Pay-Scale as reflected from Table No.3 (Annexure A-l) ought to have been made basis. Apart from this, learned counsel for the petitioner has also not advanced any submission to reinforce the claim of fhe petitioner by demonstrating the same with reference to the provisions of the Rules of 1983. Respondents have correcOy asserted in their reply that the formula contained in Table No.3 (Annexure A-l) was with regard to fixation of pay in Faquirchand Pay-Scale from Pandey Pay-Scale. A reverse fprmula while ^1 -7- :]J c^> fusing pay in the revised Choudhary Pay-Scale could not be inferred from Table No.3 (Annexure A-l). Once the revision of pay-scale is governed by statutory provision, the saine has to take place strictiy in accordance with the provision contained in the statutory rules goveming revision of pay in the revised pay-scale and any claim for revision of pay otherwise than in accordance with the statutory scheine of pay revision is wholly impermissible under the law. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1983 reproduced as under: "3. Revised Scale of Pay- The revised scale of pay applicable to any post carrying existing scale shown in columns 2 8s 3 of Annexure I and II respectively shall be the corresponding pay-scale shown in column 4 thereof respect of fhat post." 13. Thus the pay-scale with reference to which pay is to be revised would be existing scale shown in Column 2 & 3 of Annexure I 85 II, the corresponding revised pay-scale has been specified in Column No.4 of those Annexure I 8s II. Existing scale has been defined under Rule 2 (d) of the Rules of 1983 which is reproduced as under:- "2. (d)'existing scale' means, the scale of pay as shown in column 2 ofAnnexure I and colunin 3 ofAnnexure II." 14. A reference to Annexure - I immediately reveals that exisdng scale for the purposes of the Rules of 1983 is Pandey Pay-Scale. It would thus be clear that for the purposes of fixadon of pay in revised Choudhary Pay-Scale under the Rules of 1983, the existing pay-scale would be Pandey Pay- scale. m.T •^-":- -~^v_ Mii'iin UT jauuBui S.UTS ui sq o^ punoj ^ou si '-/06SS"y SB ^e1^ oisBq siq SuiuinssB 3^BOg-Ai3j AiBqpnoqo pssiAsj sip m jsuoppad sq^ jo A^d sqi jo uopExy -£Bdsip fBTfi. punoj si ^i 'sa^nj aq^ UT psure^uoo uoisiAojd sq^ o^ aousjajaj q^iA psuiurexs ST jauoppad aq^ jo SSBO sqi uaqM J3A3MOH "jsuoppsd sqi jo lurep sjpus sip joj sis-eq aip si qo^ojdd^ snop'enBj siqj, -apos-ABd AapuBd UT &ed SuiMBJp ST oqA auo jo loadssj ui SBps-X^d puBqojinb^d ui Ssd jo uopBxy Suiquossjd 3]C[s^ v si qoiqAY T: -y sjnxsuuv uodn aoueiisj pso^d SBq jsuoppsd '-/OS9'SH s'e ^s^ ois^q uirep 0^ jspjo ui fBff\ ^usjBdd^ si ^i '(z-v 3-inxauuV) jsauiSug jaiqo sip Aq suop uopaxy £Bdavp. ^sure§B SB siuspuodssj sq^ Aq psxg ussq saq 'g-^i sjnxsuuy spiA 'a^og -£edAreqpnoqo pssiAaj avft ui jauoppsd sip jo ^ad '(aAoq'e ps^j^suomap si3 -/09S"sy UBLP J3i[8ii-[ ST i,[3iqA) -/06S'sy SB •^'Bd otSBq aqi 8up[B^ 'S86T J° s3Iny 3LR UT p3ure(uoo uoisiAojd sip SuiA^ddv 'JsauTSug ^u^sissy jo ^sod aq^ joj psquosajd -/006-9Z17 jo 3I^3S~^d ^spu'BfI ui -/09S'sy sv 3}si3c\ sjauoppsd pauinssB s^uapuodssj 'sjBos-^d pssiAsj aip UT Ssd jo uopBxg jo ssodjnd aq^ joj ^q^ jBsp ApusjeddB ST 11 snqj, '-/006-SS-t7"sy SBAV jssuigug iLre^sissv jo ^sod joj psquossjd 3^05 AspLred iupspis usLp sq^ ^Bq^ a^ndsip ui ^ou si ;; "1:86T 'Aren-iqa^ ui -/09S'sy sv psxg SV/A jssuiSug ^UB^STSSV jo ^sod 3Lp joj s^og-X^d &3pW3^ 3Lp ui £eds^jauoppsd ^Bq^ punoj ST ^T 's^uspuodsaj aq^ Xq ppy (^-y ajnxsuuv) IJ^qo uop^xij-A^j LUOJJ •sis^q apBui aq o^ psq jssuigug ^UB^STSSV jo ^sod sq^ joj psquosajd apog-A^j AapuBd 3Lll u! -fed s jsuoppad 'apsos -£edSupSTXS 01 30U3J3J3J q^TM s^os-Aed jd UOISIASJ ps^duia^uoo £g6T jo ssiny sq^ ssms •SIBOS-ABJ pu^qojinbBj ui &ed STL[ 3mMi3Jp pLre jasuiSua IUB^SISSVJO ^sod sq^ o^ ps^ouiojd poo^s Ap^sj^ jauoppsd 'T86T"fr"T 'J'S'AY a^esS-Ssd Ai^qpnoqo pssiAsj 3Lp m ^vd jo UOISTASJ joj SmpiAojd sajoj o^ui aui^o £861 jo ss^ny sv^ uaqA suip 3Lp ^B ^qi s^ndsip m ^ou si ^; •si -9- (^ contravention of the statutory scheine of revision of pay as prescribed under the Rules of 1983. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate before this Court as to how and in what manner the fixation of pay of the petitioner was not in accordance with the Rules of 1983. The contention of the petitioner that his pay in the revised Choudhaiy Pay-Scale was liable to be fixed at Rs.1410/- w.e.f. 1.4.1981 assuming his basis pay as Rs.650/-, as arrived at by the Chief Engineer in the year 1992-93, has no inerit and is therefore rejected. 16. The other contention of the petidoner that he was entitled to stepping up of the pay, as upon revision of pay in the revised pay-scale, he was getting less than his junior, deserves rejection at the threshold. It is not in dispute that though both petitioner as well as Bankelal while working as Sub-Engineer were drawing Rs.480/- in the year 1977, Bankelal was promoted as Canal Deputy Collector in 1978 resulting in change of his pay arid pay-scale. The assertion made in the retuni that ever since 1978 Bankelal was enjoying higher pay than the petitioner has not been disputed. Even from the Chart placed on record by the petitioner himself as Annexure A-9, it is clear that though the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 6.2.1990, Bankelal has been shown to have been promoted as Canal Deputy Collector on 10.8.1978. The benefit of steppin^ up of pay so as to remove anomaly, as provided under Circular dated 17.9.1974 is available only subject to fulfillment ofconditions (a), (b) 8s (c) ~ of Clause 2 of that Circular. Clause 2 of the Circular dated 17.9.1974 which is relevant for the purpose is reproduced as below:- "2. In order to remove the above anomaly, the State Government are pleased to decide that the in such cases the pay of the senior officer in the revised scale in the higher post should be stepped up to a figure equal to the m -10- pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post promoted on or after 1.1.1972. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion of the junior officer and should be subject to the following conditions:- (a) Both the Junior and Senior officer should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical in the sarae cadre. (b) The unrevised scales and revised scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical, and (c) The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of the provisions of F.R. 22-D in the revised scale. Por example, if even in the lower post, the junior officer was drawing inore pay in the unrevised scale than the senior by virtue of fixation of pay under the normal rules or any advance increments granted to him the provisions contained this decisions need not be invoked to step up fhe pay of the senior officer." 17. It would thus be clear that in order to get benefit of stepping up, both the junior and senior officer should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical in the same cadre and the revised pay-scale of pay of the lower and higher post in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical. The three essential conditions are that the anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of the provisos of F.R. 22 D in the revised scale. Examination of the case in hand shows that the date on which fhe revised pay-scale came into force, the un-revised scale of the petitioner and Bankelal were not identical. Bankelal had already been promoted to the post of Canal Deputy Collector, whereas petitioner got promotion as Assistant Engineer thereafter. In such a situation, the benefit of Cireular '""I'i'"''' ;:i^:l^l:/:- iS^R"! -11- KIB .^'•^veen dated 17.9.1974 was not available. Thus claim of the petitioner has no merit. 18. The fixation of pay of the petitioner in the revised Choudhary Pay-Scale was done under the Rules of 1983 which was followed by revision of pay- scale in Vora Pay-Scale followed by revision in Central .Pay-Scale. During this period of more than 20 years, no dispute was raised by the petitioner. Petitioner retired in 1994 and more than 2/ ^ years thereafter he stared making representation first ofwhich was dated 14.11.1996 (Annexure A- 6). As far as claim based on parity is concemed, Bankelal s pay was also Gxed long back under revision the Rules of 1983 and petitioner did not raise any dispute. It appears that just before petitioner's retirement a new pay fixation was proposed by the Chief Engineer which was not accepted by the Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury 8s Pension. To say the least, the claim of the petitioner, in addition to being without merit is stale. 19. Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 20. There shall be no order as to costs. ^a^ ^'^s^a8 f^^ ;^^w^ saf^ rill':'ii';T:l".WS::