STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus VIJAY SHANKAR DUBEY
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 984, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
v.
VIJAY SHANKAR DUBEY
(Civil Appeal No. 1757 of 2020)
MARCH 19, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Service Law:
Pay Scale – Claim for benefit of higher pay-scale –
Entitlement – Superannuation of employee on 31.1.1997 who was
holding post of Joint Director, Prosecution – On recommendation
of Fifth Pay Commission, enhanced pay scale granted w.e.f.
1.1.1996 and accordingly pension revised – By order dated
2.2.2007 a Committee considering the anomalies in the Fifth Pay
Commission further upgraded the pay w.e.f. 1.4.2001 –
Representation of employee claiming revision of pension on the
basis of order dated 2.2.2007 – Employer denied the benefit – Writ
petition claiming revised pension on the basis of enhanced pay
scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 – Allowed by High Court – Appeal to Supreme
Court – Held: Analogy Committee amended the pay scale on the
analogy in the CBI – When a benefit is extended to a category of
employees for the first time, State can fix a rational cut-off date –
It was not obligatory for the State to extend the benefit of such
analogy w.e.f. 1.1.1996 i.e. the date of recommendations of Fifth
Pay Commission – The employee was not covered by order dated
2.2.2007.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The respondent was extended the benefit of
Fifth Pay Commission Report from 01.01.1996 and his pension
was thus revised accordingly. The State Government accepted
the
recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission vide Government
order dated 23.12.1997 and decided to revise the pay scale from
01.01.1996. [Para 11] [988-H; 989-A]
2. The Government order dated 02.02.2007 had enclosure
in tabular form having columns- Designation, General Revised
   [2020] 4 S.C.R. 984
984
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
985
Pay Scale with effect from 01.01.1996, Amended Pay Scale with
effect from 01.04.2001 and Recommendation. The enclosure
indicates that pay scales of all the officers of Prosecution
Department were not amended, amendments were made only for
the Senior Prosecution Officer (Senior Scale)/Deputy Director
Prosecution and Joint Director (Law)/Joint Director
(Prosecution) with effect from 01.04.2001. [Paras 12 & 13] [990-
A; 991-A]
3. The cut off date, 01.04.2001 for amendment of pay scale
of the post of Joint Director, Prosecution on the basis of the
recommendation of the Committee of the Chief Secretary was a
conscious decision, the amendment in the pay scale was made
following the analogy in the CBI organisation of the Center.
When a benefit for the first time is extended to a category of
employees, the State can always fix a rational cut off date and it
was not obligatory for the State to extend the benefit of analogy
of the CBI organisation of the Center with effect from
01.01.1996 which was the date of the recommendations of the
Fifth Pay Commission. The respondent being not covered by the
Government order dated 02.02.2007 was rightly informed that
he was not entitled for the benefit of amendment in the pay scale
he having already retired on 31.01.1997. [Para 19] [993-H; 994-
A-B]
Purshottam Lal and Others v. Union of India and
Another (1973) 1 SCC 651 – distinguished.
Case Law Reference
(1973) 1 SCC 651
distinguished
Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil Appeal No. 1757
of 2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2017 of the High
Court of  Judicature of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ
A. No.18687 of 2013
V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv., Ankur Prakash, Adv. for the Appellants.
P.N. Misra, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ms. Saroj Tripathi, Advs. for
the Respondent.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v.
VIJAY SHANKAR DUBEY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and others
challenging the judgment of Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court, Lucknow Bench dated 01.11.2017 by which writ petition filed
by the respondent seeking the benefit of higher pay scale with effect
from 01.01.1996 has been allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case for deciding this appeal are:
The respondent was initially appointed as Assistant Public Officer
on 11.02.1963. On 12.06.1964 the respondent was promoted as Joint
Director, Prosecution, Class I post. The respondent attained the age of
superannuation on 31.01.1997. At the time of retirement he was in the
pay scale of Rs.3700-5000 as per Fourth Pay Commission Report. On
the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission Report the pay scale
for the post of Joint Director, Prosecution was revised upward to
Rs.12000-16500 in place of Rs.3700-5000. Accordingly, pay scale of
respondent was revised and he was given revised pension also.
3. To consider various representations and objections regarding
the pay scale consequent to Fifth Pay Commission Report, accepted
by the Government on 02.02.1997, a Committee under the
Chairmanship of Chief Secretary was constituted. It is also referred
as Committee to consider anomalies. The said Committee considered
the amendment in the pay scale of the post of the Prosecution Branch
also. The Committee
recommended that the pay scale of various
categories of Prosecution cadre should be upgraded as per the analogy
of the post existing in the CBI Organisation of the Center with effect
from 01.04.2001. For the post of Joint Director, Prosecution the pay
scale was recommended to be revised into Rs.14300-18500 with effect
from 01.04.2001. The recommendation of the said Committee was
accepted by the Government and an order dated 02.02.2007 was issued
accepting recommendation for amending the pay scale of Joint Director,
Prosecution as Rs.14330-18500 with effect from 01.04.2001. The
amendments in the pay scales with regard to other categories, were
also amended from the same date i.e. 01.04.2001. The respondent who
had retired on 31.01.1997, after the Government order dated 02.02.2007
submitted a representation on 21.07.2011 praying that he be given the
benefit of the Government order dated 02.02.2007 and his pension be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
987
revised with effect from 01.01.1996. On 30.11.2012, the Director,
Pension, Uttar Pradesh informed the respondent that he is not entitled
for any revised pension since he has already retired from the services
on 31.01.1997 and the amendment in the pay scale was enforced from
01.04.2001.
4. The respondent filed a Writ-A No.18687 of 2013 in the High
Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the writ
petition relying on two earlier judgments of the High Court i.e. judgments
of the High Court in Special Appeal (D) No.870 of 2009 (State of U.P.
and others vs. Anand Kumar Mishra and others) and Special Appeal
No.115 (SB) of 2009 (State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs.
Ghanshayam Singh and another). The High Court held that the
respondent’s case being fully covered by the judgment of the High Court
in State of U.P. and others vs. Anand Kumar Mishra and others, the
respondent is entitled to the benefit of amended pay scale with effect
from 01.01.1996. The aggrieved with the judgment of the High Court
this appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. and others.
5. We have heard Shri V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants and Shri P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent.
6. Shri V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel for the appellants
contends that the State Government after considering the
recommendations of the Committee decided to amend the pay scales
of various posts in the Prosecution Department of the
State of U.P.
with effect from 01.04.2001 which decision was consequent to the
recommendation made by the Committee. Shri Shekhar submits that
the date 01.04.2001 was fixed for amending the pay scales following
the analogy in the Centre with regard to CBI organisation. The analogy
of CBI Organisation was adopted for the first time for making pay
scales of different posts in the Prosecution Branch of the State
according to the pay scales in the CBI. Hence, date for implementation
of said benefit was fixed as 01.04.2001. He submits that the
Government order dated 02.02.2007 does not indicate that there was
any error in the pay scale which was granted to the respondent on the
basis of Fifth Pay Commission Report. He submits that there was a
rational basis in fixing the date 01.04.2001 which cannot be validly
challenged by the respondent. The High Court relied on the earlier two
judgments of the High Court in the case of State of U.P. and others
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v.
VIJAY SHANKAR DUBEY [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
vs. Anand Kumar Mishra and others which was a case of the employees
of U.P. Police Radio Department. Another judgment relied by the High
Court in Ghanshayam Singh’s case was also a case relating not to the
Prosecution Wing of the State. The two judgments relied by the High
Court were in different set of facts and for different posts which cannot
be said to cover the case of the respondent and the High Court erred
in holding that the case of the respondent was covered by the aforesaid
judgments.
7. It was further submitted that another Division Bench vide its
judgment dated 08.05.2018 in Writ Appeal No.20754 of 2013 (Sudhir
Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others) where the petitioner retired
from post of Joint Director(Prosecution) on 30.11.1999 and claimed the
benefit of Government order dated 02.02.2007 with effect from
01.01.1996 dismissed the Writ Appeal in which judgment it was correctly
held that the benefit cannot be extended to Joint Directors (Prosecution)
who retired on 01.11.1999.
8. Shri P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent refuting the submission of learned senior counsel for the
appellants contends that two Division Bench judgments of the High
Court relied in the impugned judgment were fully applicable. It is
submitted that no appeal was filed against the judgment in Ghanshayam
Singh’s case whereas SLP (C) No. 27765 of 2009 was filed against
the judgment of the High Court
dated 06.08.2009 in Special Appeal
No.870 of 2009 which SLP was dismissed on 06.11.2009.
9. Shri Misra submits that when the Fifth Pay Commission
recommendations were implemented from 01.01.1996, the pay scale
of respondent was not properly fixed and that is why the Committee
for anomalies came into existence which recommended the revision and
amendment of pay scale into Rs.14300 to 18500 which ought to have
been implemented with effect from 01.01.1996.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the records.
11. Between the parties there is no dispute that Fifth Pay
Commission revised pay scale of Joint Director, Prosecution from
Rs.3700-5000 to Rs.12000-16500. The respondent was extended the
benefit of Fifth Pay Commission Report from 01.01.1996 and his pension
was thus revised accordingly. The State Government accepted the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
989
recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission vide Government order dated
23.12.1997 and decided to revise the pay scale from 01.01.1996. Several
objections and representations were submitted by several Departments
including Officers working in the Directorate of Prosecution. The
relevant portion of the Government order dated 02.02.2007 is as follows:
“From,
(illegible)
Under Secretary U.P. Government,
To,
The Director General Prosecution,
Directorate of Prosecution U.P.,
Lucknow.
Letter No.246/VI-P-9-07-31(49)/2000 dated 02.02.2007.
Sub:
Regarding amendment in the Pay Scale of the
various posts existing in the Prosecution
Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
This is with reference to the captioned matter. I have been
directed to say that on the basis of the recommendations of the
Pay Committee 1997-99 constituted for revision of pay scales
etc. of the Government Personnels employed in the various
Departments of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and after
taking into consideration such recommendations, the Committee
headed by the Chief Secretary was constituted for taking decision
in cases of incidents of anomalies in the pay scales etc. On the
basis of the recommendations of the said Chief Secretary
Committee. His Excellency the Hon’ble Governor of Uttar
Pradesh is pleased to sanction a revised Higher Pay Scale, for
the various posts, in the Prosecution Department as referred in
Column-2 of the chart annexed with this Government Order, in
place of the
General Revised Pay Scales applicable with effect
from 01.01.1996, as shown in column-3 of the said chart, to be
implemented with effect from 01.04.2001.
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……”
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v.
VIJAY SHANKAR DUBEY [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
990
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
12. The Government order dated 02.02.2007 had enclosure in
tabular form having columns- Designation, General Revised Pay Scale
with effect from 01.01.1996, Amended Pay Scale with effect from
01.04.2001 and Recommendation. It is useful to extract the enclosure
to the Government order dated 02.02.2007 which is to the following
effect:
Sl.No.
Designation
General
Amended
Recommendation
Revised
Pay Scale
Pay Scale
with effect
with effect
from
from
01.04.2001
01.01.1996
1
2
3
4
5
1.
Prosecution
7450-
8000-275-
- -
Officer
11500
13500
2.
Senior
8000-
10000-325-
- -
Prosecution
13500
15200
Officers
(Ordinary
Scale)
3.
Senior
10000-
12000-
The designation of
Prosecution
15200
375-16500
Senior Prosecution
Officer(Senior
Officer (Senior Pay
Scale)/Deputy
Scale)/Deputy
Director
Director shall be
Prosecution
re-designated as
Joint Director
Prosecution.
4.
Joint Director
12000-
14300-400-
The designation of
(Law)/Joint
16500
18400
Joint Director
Director
(Prosecution) and
(Prosecution)
Joint Director
(Law) shall be
re-designated as
Additional Director
(Prosecution) and
Additional Director
(Law)
Sd/-
Manju Chandra
Special Secretary”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
991
13. A perusal of the above enclosure indicates that pay scales
of all the officers of Prosecution Department were not amended,
amendments were made only for the Senior Prosecution Officer (Senior
Scale)/Deputy Director Prosecution and Joint Director (Law)/Joint
Director (Prosecution) with effect from 01.04.2001 as mentioned in
column No.4.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of
submissions, has submitted that date, 01.04.2001 was recommended by
the Committee of the Chief Secretary due to accepting the analogy in
the CBI organisation of the Center. Learned counsel for the appellants
referring to the recommendation of the Committee of the Chief
Secretary contented that the higher pay scale sanctioned to the Joint
Director in the Prosecution Department was on the basis of analogy
of CBI organisation of the Center. In the written submission which has
been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants
recommendation of Chief Secretary’s Committee on consideration of
amendment in the pay scale of the post of the Prosecution Branch has
been placed for perusal which indicates that the recommendations of
the Committee were:
“………In view of the above situations, the Committee
recommends that the pay scales of the various categories of the
prosecution cadre should be upgraded as per the above general
decision on the analogy of the existing posts in the CBI
organisation of the Center from 01.04.2001 as follows………”
15. The recommendations of
the Committee of Chief Secretary
were accepted and consequent Government order was issued on
02.02.2007 accordingly.
16. The High Court in the impugned judgment relying on two
earlier judgments of the High Court, in Ghanshyam Singh and Anand
Kumar Mishra and others, held that the case of the respondent is
covered by the said judgments, hence, the writ petition is to be allowed.
The High Court had not opined as to how the cut off date was fixed
as 01.04.2001 is unsustainable. The Report of anomaly of the Committee
with regard to different Departments recommending different pay scales
is based on pay structure of different Departments and merely because
employees of wireless department has been given higher scale with
effect from 01.01.1996 that cannot be the ground to declare the date,
01.04.2001 fixed for implementation of the amendment of pay scale of
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v.
VIJAY SHANKAR DUBEY [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
992
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
the Joint Director, Prosecution illegal. We find substance in the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that amendment
in the pay scale of Joint Director, Prosecution was recommended by
the Committee of the Chief Secretary on the analogy of the CBI
organisation of the Center. Thus, the benefit of upgradation of pay scale
as per pay scale in CBI organisations was accepted for the first time.
The representation of Prosecution Wing was accepted by the Committee
of the Chief Secretary agreeing to extend the benefits of the CBI
organisation of the Center. When the amendment in the pay scale is
being affected, we do not find any arbitrariness in fixing uniform date,
01.04.2001. The submission of Shri Misra that amendment of the pay
scale ought to relate back from 01.01.1996 which was the date fixed
by the Fifth Pay Commission cannot be accepted in the facts of the
present case.
17. Shri Misra has also placed reliance on the judgment of this
Court in Purshottam Lal and others vs. Union of India and another,
(1973) 1 SCC 651. In the above case, the petitioners were employed
with the Forest Research Institute and Colleges, Dehra Dun which was
a department of the Government of India, Ministry of Food and
Agriculture. The Second Pay Commission submitted its report and made
recommendations with regard to Scientific Staff. The revision of the
pay scale of the Scientific Staff in the Forest Research Institute was
with effect from 21.06.1962 whereas recommendation of Second Pay
Commission was accepted by the Government with effect from July
1, 1959 with regard to similar sister Institutions. The said Scientific Staff
of Forest Research Institute protested and submitted representation and
thereafter filed the writ petition under Article 32 in this Court. Before
this Court arguments were raised on behalf of the Government that
Second Pay Commission did not deal with the case of the petitioners
and they were not entitled for the benefit with effect from July 1, 1959
which submission was not accepted. In paragraphs 14,15 and 17 this
Court laid down following:
“14. Mr Dhebar on behalf of the Government maintains the same
position and he says that the Pay Commission Report did not deal
with the case of the petitioners. We are unable to accept this
contention. The terms of reference are wide, and if any category
of government servants was excluded material should have been
placed before this Court. The Pay Commission has clearly stated
that for the purposes of their enquiry they had taken all persons
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
993
in the Civil Services of the Central Government or holding civil
posts under that Government and paid out of the Consolidated
Fund of India, to be Central Government employees. It is not
denied by Mr. Dhebar that the petitioners are paid out of the
Consolidated Fund of India.
15. Mr. Dhebar contends that it was for the Government to
accept the recommendations of the Pay Commission and while
doing so to determine which categories of employees should be
taken to have been included in the terms of reference. We are
unable to appreciate this point. Either the Government has made
reference in respect of all government employees or it has not.
But if it has made a reference in respect of all government
employees and it accepts the recommendations it is bound to
implement the recommendations in respect of all government
employees. If it does not implement the report regarding some
employees only it commits a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. This is what the Government has done as far as
these petitioners are concerned.
17. In the result the petition is allowed and it is directed that the
revised pay-scales of the petitioners will have effect from July
1, 1959, in accordance with the recommendations of the Pay
Commission. We further direct that the petitioners should be paid
the amount payable to them as a consequence of the revision of
the pay-scales with effect from July 1959. The petitioners will
have the costs of this petition.”
18. In the
above case, this Court has considered a case which
was also covered by the Second Pay Commission but benefits were
not extended whereas benefits to the similar sister Institutions were
extended. This Court, thus, allowed the writ petition and directed the
benefit to writ petitioners also with effect from July 1, 1959. The above
case has no bearing on the facts of the present case. The sequences
and events in the present as noted above are based on different set of
facts and the above judgment does not help the respondent in the present
case.
19. We, thus, are of the view that the cut off date, 01.04.2001
for amendment of pay scale of the post of Joint Director, Prosecution
on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee of the Chief
Secretary was a conscious decision, the amendment in the pay scale
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v.
VIJAY SHANKAR DUBEY [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
was made following the analogy in the CBI organisation of the Center.
When a benefit for the first time is extended to a category of employees,
the State can always fix a rational cut off date and it was not obligatory
for the State to extend the benefit of analogy of the CBI organisation
of the Center with effect from 01.01.1996 which was the date of the
recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission. The respondent being
not covered by the Government order dated 02.02.2007 was rightly
informed that he was not entitled for the benefit of amendment in the
pay scale he having already retired on 31.01.1997.
20. In the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the
judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and is hereby set aside.
The appeal is allowed.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal allowed.