R. S. A. No. 4775 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 4775 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 05, 2011 J. C. Kapoor .... Appellant Vs. Govt. of India and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Appellant in person. Mr. Punet Gupta, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3 – Caveators. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff J. C. Kapoor, who was successful in the trial court, but has been non-suited by the lower appellate court, is in second appeal. Appellant-plaintiff was working as Office Superintendent in the office of defendant-respondent no.3 i.e. Regional Director, Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Chandigarh (in short – the Institute). His pre-revised pay scale prior to 01.01.1996 was ₹ 1400-2300. After revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996, the plaintiff was placed in pay scale of ₹ 4500-7000. R. S. A. No. 4775 of 2010 2 The plaintiff's grievance in the suit is that being Office Superintendent, he should have been placed in revised pay scale of ₹ 5000- 8000 in accordance with recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission appointed by the Central Government (in short – Fifth Pay Commission). The plaintiff also claimed fixed medical allowance @ ₹ 100/- per month in accordance with circular of Central Government. Defendants controverted the claim of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that defendants no.2 and 3 i.e. Director General, National Council for Cooperative Training (in short – the Council) and the Regional Director of the Institute cannot be sued and only the Institute and the Council could be sued. Various other objections were also raised. On merits, it was pleaded that the Council has fixed the revised scale of ₹ 4500-7000 for Office Superintendents and the said scale is appropriate. Old scale of ₹ 1400-2300 was revised to ₹ 4500-7000 by the Council by its notification. The plaintiff is not entitled to revised scale as per recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, which are applicable to employees of Central Government and are not automatically applicable to employees of the Council or the Institute. The Council can adopt its own scales and accordingly, vide notification dated 06.10.1997, the Council adopted revised pay scale of ₹ 4500-7000 for old scale of ₹ 1400-2300. The plaintiff is not entitled to revised pay scale of ₹ 5000-8000. The plaintiff's claim for fixed medical allowance was also controverted. Various other R. S. A. No. 4775 of 2010 3 pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2007, decreed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by the defendants has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 26.07.2010 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard the appellant in person and learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 – Caveators and also perused the case file. The appellant vehemently contended that according to Part-A of the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission, scale of ₹ 1400-2300 was revised to ₹ 4500-7000, but in Part-B of the recommendations, the Commission recommended revised scale of ₹ 5000-8000 for pre-revised scale of ₹ 1400-2300 for Office Superintendents and therefore, plaintiff- appellant is entitled to scale of ₹ 5000-8000. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 contended that recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission, as adopted by the Central Government, have applicability to employees of the Central Government and the said recommendations are not automatically applicable to employees of the Council and the Institute and are, therefore, not applicable to the plaintiff-appellant. It was contended that the Council has adopted Part-A of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission and in R. S. A. No. 4775 of 2010 4 view thereof, revised scale of ₹ 4500-7000 has been rightly granted to the plaintiff-appellant in lieu of pre-revised scale of ₹ 1400-2300. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Revised scales recommended by Fifth Pay Commission are not automatically applicable to any employee. The said scales became applicable even to the employees of Central Government only after Central Government adopted the same. Similarly, the said scales are not automatically applicable to employees of Council or the Institute merely on being adopted by the Central Government. On the contrary, employees of the Council and the Institute became entitled to revised scales as adopted by the Council. In the instant case, as per notification of the Council, revised scale of ₹ 4500-7000 was adopted for pre-revised scale of ₹ 1400-2300. There was no separate categorization of revised scale for Office Superintendents working under the Council or the Institute. Even for Central Government employees, in general, revised pay scale of ₹ 4500-7000 has been accepted in lieu of pre- revised scale of ₹ 1400-2300. However, for Office Superintendents working in Central Government offices other than Secretariat, revised scale of ₹ 5000-8000 has been adopted, but the said scale has not been adopted by the Council or the Institute for Office Superintendents working in them. Consequently, the plaintiff employed in the Institute is not entitled to revised scale of ₹ 5000-8000, when the said scale had not been adopted by R. S. A. No. 4775 of 2010 5 the Council or the Institute. On the other hand, in accordance with notification of the Council for revision of pay scales, the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to revised scale of ₹ 4500-7000 against his pre-revised scale of ₹ 1400-2300. Consequently, scale of ₹ 4500-7000 granted by the Institute to the plaintiff-appellant does not call for interference, as sought by the plaintiff-appellant. It may be added that grant of pay scales is within the purview of the employer. Ordinarily, Courts do not interfere with the same, unless it is depicted that the same is in violation of any Statute or Constitution or suffers from gross unreasonableness thereby infringing the principle of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, however, it cannot be said that revised scale granted to the plaintiff suffers from any such vice so as to call for interference by the Court. It may be added that even Public Sector Undertakings of the Central Government do not adopt uniform revised scales. Some undertakings in profit may grant revised scales, as applicable to employees of Central Government, but some other undertakings, which may not be so profitable or may be in loss, do not grant such revised scales and rather adopt their own scales. In the instant case, the Council has granted revised scale of ₹ 4500-7000, which is also as per general recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission corresponding to pre-revised scale of ₹ 1400-2300. Consequently, the same does not warrant interference at the hands of the R. S. A. No. 4775 of 2010 6 Courts. The appellant also vehemently contended that the trial court also granted fixed medical allowance of ₹ 100/- per month to the plaintiff, but learned lower appellate court has not dealt with the said issue at all. It is correct that the lower appellate court has not dealt with the same, although it should have done so. The appellant contended that according to judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, right to good health is part of right to life within meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, fixed medical allowance of ₹ 100/- per month should be granted to the plaintiff- appellant. The contention cannot be accepted. The Council or the Institute is not paying any such fixed medical allowance to any of its employees. Central Government notification granting fixed medical allowance of ₹ 100/- per month to its employees has not been adopted by the Council or the Institute. Consequently, the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to the said allowance. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. January 05, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE