Union sought writ challenging benefit of higher pay scale granted to deputed employee after his absorption. High Court dismissed petition, upholding Tribunal order fixing pay and pension with no arrears.
Petition rejected; order of tribunal to be complied with within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 432 OF 2004
Union of India ... Petitioner
Versus
Anand Padmanabha Udupa ... Respondents
Mr. T.J. Pandian for Petitioner.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 07, 2006
P.C.
. The Petitioner was working with Central Railway.
The Petitioner however, was sent on deputation to
Konkan Railway on 19.11.1991. During his
deputation, his junior Mr. R.N. Bhattacharji was
promoted in the pay scale of Rs.2375-3500.
Accordingly the Central Railway wrote to Konkan
Railway Corporation to provide financial benefit in
the scale of Rs.2375-3500 to the Petitioner. Some
time in the year 1998, Petitioner applied for being
absorbed in Konkan Railway Corporation. However,
Central Railway asked him to submit his resignation
and as such technical resignation was given by the
Respondent on 5.12.1998 which was accepted by the
2
Petitioner herein. From 21.4.1999, the respondent
was permanently absorbed in the Konkan Railway
Corporation.
. It was the case of the Respondent that
considering the Next Below Rule as his junior have
been given higher pay scale, he should also be
given higher pay scale and his pay be fixed in that
scale. As the Petitioners failed to give to the
respondents the pay scale, he filed O.A. No. 893
of 2002. The learned tribunal vide its order dated
22.10.2002 was pleased to allow the Original
Application. The tribunal on the perusal of the
F.R. No. 30(1)(1325) and Note (4) thereto came to
the conclusion that considering the F.R. No.
(1325) and considering similar language in F.R.
No. 30, the Petitioner would be entitled to have
his pensionary benefits fixed by revising his pay
and fix the last drawn notionally. At the same
time, it was clear that as the respondent had not
worked with Central Railway they are not entitled
to pay any arrears on salary. On behalf of the
petitioner, the learned counsel contends that it is
only in the event the Respondent had come back to
3
the parent department and his junior still
continued in promotional post, would be the
respondent be entitled to fix his pay based on the
Next Below Rule.
. On the consideration of the rule and Note (4) we
are of the opinion that the order of the tribunal
does not suffer from any error apparent. If the
defence on behalf of the Petitioners is accepted,
then it would mean that if a person is sent on
deputation and his junior in his department is
promoted, then a person on deputation will be
denied benefits of the pay in the pay scale which
his junior is drawing, for no fault of his. This
would be totally arbitrary. The Note (4) which the
tribunal relied upon, takes that into
consideration. Once that be the case, as the
construction put up by the tribunal cannot be said
to be construction incapable of being put up. We
therefore, do not think this to be a fit case to
interfere in the impugned order in exercise of
extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence, Petition
rejected. Petitioners to comply with the orders
within three months from the receipt of the copy of
4
this order.
(F.I. REBELLO,J.)
(DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Tribunal erred in holding Applicant entitled to pensionary benefits by revising pay based on Next Below Rule after being absorbed.
Whether arbitrary if Government employee on deputation must wait until return to parent department for pay fixation equal to junior's scale.
Whether construction placed by Tribunal regarding fixation of pay and pensionary benefits is legally sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N/AReferred
Union of India
Anand Padmanabha Udupa
F. I. Rebello
D. Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court