- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Madan Lal v. Registrar, Delhi High Court And Ors.
Summary of Judicial Opinion – B.N. Kirpal, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
The writ petition challenges the non-fixation of pay of the petitioner, a Class-IV employee (Usher) of this Court, pursuant to the Fourth Pay Commission Report. The petition was filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all Class-IV employees (Peons, Frashes, Safai-Walas, Daftries, Jamadars, Junior Library Attendants, Records Sorters, Junior Gestetner Operators and similar posts) and the judgment is to apply to all such Class-IV employees of the Court.
Historically, before the Third Pay Commission Report these employees were in pre-revised scales ranging from Rs. 196-232 to Rs. 210-270. The petitioner previously filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2236/86 seeking fixation in Rs. 300-430 because similar employees in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana were in that scale. That petition was allowed by this Court on 4 December 1986 and the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 5002/87) on 1 May 1987. Consequently the petitioner and other Class-IV employees had their pay fixed in Rs. 300-430 with effect from 1 January 1978.
After the Fourth Pay Commission (with recommended scales applicable from 1 January 1986) the Chief Justice recommended that Class-IV employees be placed in revised scale Rs. 975-1540 (Model 8). The Central Government, by letter dated 6 December 1988, deferred conveying revision of pay-scales for L.D.Cs, Restorers and other Class-IV employees pending a decision by the Supreme Court in a case before it, while approving revised scales for employees in higher scales.
Restorers and L.D.Cs filed C. Writ No. 3462/89 (Rohtas Kumar v. Union of India). This Court allowed that writ on 9 October 1990 rejecting the respondent's contention that fixation must await the Supreme Court's decision about its own employees; the Supreme Court dismissed the Union's SLP (No. 151/91) on 21 January 1991. As a result, Restorers and L.D.Cs were held entitled to pay fixation in revised scale Rs. 1350-2200.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondents were under an obligation to determine and fix an appropriate revised scale of pay for Class-IV employees of this Court pursuant to the Fourth Pay Commission Report and related governmental action.
- If so, which revised pay-scale is the appropriate equivalent for Class-IV employees (specifically employees in pre-revised scale Rs. 300-430)?
- Whether the affected Class-IV employees are entitled to arrears and interest for the period of non-fixation, and if so, at what rate and from which date.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner sought a writ directing respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner and other Class-IV employees in the appropriate revised scale pursuant to the Fourth Pay Commission recommendations.
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents' counsel contended that the petitioner could not ask for fixation in a scale other than that recommended by the Chief Justice of the Court (i.e., they relied on the Chief Justice's recommendation as determinative).
- The respondents also relied on the position that the Supreme Court had yet to decide scales for its own employees and implied that this could affect fixation—but the Court records that in view of the Rohtas Kumar decision no serious argument was advanced that Supreme Court non-fixation precluded fixation for High Court employees.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Civil Writ Petition No. 2236/86 (judgment dated 4 Dec 1986) and SLP No. 5002/87 (dismissed 1 May 1987) | That Class-IV employees' pay could be fixed in the scale Rs. 300-430 where similar employees elsewhere (High Court of Punjab & Haryana) drew that scale; the judgment fixed pay w.e.f. 1 Jan 1978. | The Court relied on the fact that the earlier decision had finally settled the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs. 300-430 for the petitioner and other Class-IV employees, making fixation under the Fourth Pay Commission necessary. |
| Rohtas Kumar v. Union of India, C. Writ No. 3462/89 (judgment dated 9 Oct 1990) and SLP No. 151/91 (dismissed 21 Jan 1991) | That the Supreme Court's pending decision about its own employees does not prevent fixation of pay-scales of High Court employees; High Court employees were entitled to equivalent revised scales following the Fourth Pay Commission. | The Court applied this principle to reject any contention that fixation for Class-IV employees here should await the Supreme Court's resolution; the Court found the Government had duty to fix scales and that Rohtas Kumar required fixation for those not yet covered. |
| AIR 1985 SC 356 (Supreme Court decision cited) | Authority for awarding interest along with arrears (illustrated in a pension case where interest was directed with arrears of pension). | The Court cited this case as precedent for awarding interest on arrears due to delayed payment and, by analogy, supported awarding interest to Class-IV employees on withheld salary arrears. |
| AIR 1989 Vol. 3 Judgment Today 637 (Life Insurance Corporation case) | Authority for awarding interest at 15% per annum for wrongful withholding of money by an entity (LIC), i.e., an instance where 15% p.a. interest was directed on withheld funds. | The Court took the "clue" from this LIC case and directed interest at 15% per annum on the arrears payable to the petitioner and other Class-IV employees. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's reasoning proceeds in the following steps, as reflected in the opinion:
- Finality of pre-revised scale: The Court observed that the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs. 300-430 for the petitioner had been finally settled by earlier decisions (Civil Writ Petition No. 2236/86 and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the related SLP), so there was no dispute about the starting (pre-revised) scale to be considered for revision.
- Obligation to fix revised scale: Because the Fourth Pay Commission recommendations had been made applicable from 1 January 1986 and applied by government orders to other employees, the Court held the respondents were under an obligation to determine and fix an appropriate revised scale for Class-IV employees. The Central Government's letter of 6 December 1988 deferring decision pending the Supreme Court case did not constitute a refusal to grant an appropriate scale and was insufficient; the Government had failed in its duty to fix scales, particularly after Rohtas Kumar.
- Selection of the appropriate revised model-scale: The Court analyzed the Models in the Fourth Pay Commission compilation. It noted:
- The Chief Justice had recommended Model 8 (Rs. 975-25-1150-EB-30-1540) as corresponding to pre-revised Rs. 300-430.
- Model 8 had been equated with certain pre-revised scales (Rs. 260-8-340-10-430 and Rs. 290-6-326-8-350-EB-8-390-10-400), both of which had starting points lower than Rs. 300.
- Model 9 (Rs. 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660) had also been equated with pre-revised scales whose minimums were lower than Rs. 300, but Model 9's maximum was higher (Rs. 1660) than Model 8's maximum (Rs. 1540).
- The pre-revised scale of the petitioner (Rs. 300-430) had a starting figure higher than the pre-revised scales equated to Models 7–9; only Model 10 had a pre-existing minimum higher (Rs. 330) but was not otherwise the nearest fit.
- Entitlement to arrears and interest: The Court found that the petitioner and other Class-IV employees should have had pay fixation effective from 1 January 1986 and had been deprived of money due to them without fault. The Court relied on two Supreme Court decisions (a pension case, AIR 1985 SC 356, and an LIC case, AIR 1989 Vol. 3 Judgment Today 637) where interest was awarded with arrears. Taking the LIC case as a model, the Court directed interest at 15% per annum on arrears.
- Remedial directions and timeframe: The Court directed fixation in the chosen revised scale and specified time limits for implementation and payment of arrears with interest (see Holding section for precise directives).
Holding and Implications
WRIT PETITION ALLOWED.
Directives and immediate consequences (as stated in the opinion):
- The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner and other Class-IV employees of this Court in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 (Model 9) in accordance with the Central Civil Services (revised pay) Rules 1986.
- The respondents must fix this pay within two months from the date of the judgment.
- Arrears, if any, must be paid to the petitioner and other Class-IV employees along with interest at 15% per annum within one month after fixation is made.
- The interest is directed to run from 6 December 1988 (the date of the Government letter deferring fixation) until the date of payment.
- There will be no order as to costs.
Broader implications: The Court applied existing decisions (including Rohtas Kumar and the cited Supreme Court authorities) to require the Government and respondents to fix appropriate revised pay-scales for High Court Class-IV employees without awaiting decisions relating only to the Supreme Court's own employees. The opinion does not state that it is announcing a new legal principle beyond applying existing authorities; its effect is to direct immediate relief and fixation for the affected employees.
Disposition: Petition allowed.
B.N Kirpal, J.— The challenge in this writ petition is to the non-fixation of the pay of the petitioner pursuant to the report of the Fouth Pay Commission.
2. The petitioner in Class-IV employee of this Court and is working as an Usher in the pay-scale of Rs. 300-430. This petition appears to have been filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all the Class-IV employees of this Court, who are Peons, Frashes, Safai-Walas, Daftries, Jamadars, Junior Library Attendants, Records Sorters and Junior Gestetner Operators. This judgment will, therefore, be applicable to all these and other Class-IV employees of this Court.
3. Prior to the Third Pay Commission Report, these employees were in the pay-scales ranging from Rs. 196-232 to Rs. 210-270. The petitioner herein filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 2236/86, inter alia, praying that the pay of Class-IV employees of this Court should be fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 300-430 inasmuch as similar employees in the High Court of Punjab&Haryana were drawing their salaries in this pay,-scale of Rs. 300-430.
4. The aforesaid petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 4th December, 1986. The Union of India filed a Special Leave Petition being No. 5002/87 and on Ist May, 1987 the Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP.
5. As a result of the aforesaid decision the petitioner and other Class-IV employees got their pay fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 300-430 w.e.f Ist January, 1978.
6. The Central Government had constituted the Fourth Pay Commission. The said Commission gave its report which made the scales recommended by it applicable w.e.f Ist January, 1986. The High Court, like the Supreme Court, was not covered by the said Pay Commission Report. As the pay-scales recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission, and accepted by the Central Government, are also applied to the High Court by separate orders, the then Chief Justice of this Court on 8th March, 1988 wrote to the Minister of Law and Justice recommending different pay-scales for various categories of employees of this Court. In respect of the Class-IV employees the recommendation of the Chief Justice was that they should be placed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540. This was, according to the Chief Justice, the scale which was corresponding to the existing pay-scale of Rs. 300-430.
7. The Central Government wrote a letter dated 6th December, 1988 wherein it was, inter alia, stated that revision of pay-scales regarding L.D.Cs, Restorers and other Class-IV employees will be conveyed later on after a decision is taken by the Supreme Court in a case which was pending before It. The Central Government, however, accorded approval in respect of employees of this Court who were in a scale higher than that of the L.D.Cs
8. Two of the categories in respect of which pay had not been fixed because of the said letter were that of Restorers and L.D.Cs They then filed a writ petition being C. Writ No. 3462/89, Rohtas Kumar v. Union of India. One of the contentions raised by the Union of India was that the Supreme Court, had in respect of its own employees, yet to take decision with regard to scales of pay which should be applicable to them and, therefore, the pay of those petitioners could not be fixed Vide our judgment dated 9th October, 1990, this and the other contentions of the respondents, were rejected. It was, inter alia, held that the Supreme Court was concerned with its own employees and far as the High Court employees were concerned, their pay-scales had already been fixed, prior to the proposed revision w.e.f Ist January, 1986, and after the Fourth Pay Commission Report, the equivalent scales of pay were to be made applicable to the High Court employees. The writ petition having been allowed, the respondents, once again, filed a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, once again, vide their order dated 21st January, 1991 dismissed the Special Leave Petition No. 151/91 filed by the Union of India. The effect of this was that the Restorers and LDCs of this Court, by virtue of this Court's judgment dated 9th October, 1990 were entitled to have their pay fixed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1350-2200.
9. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the present case is that an appropriate writ be issued directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner and other Class-IV employees in the appropriate scale of pay. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner cannot ask for fixation in a scale different than the one which is recommended by the Chief Justice of this Court. In view of the judgment of this Court in Rohias Kumar's case (supra), no serious argument has been advanced that because of non-fixation of the scales of pay of the Supreme Court employees fixation of the High Court employees pay cannot be effected.
10. In our opinion the pay-scale of the petitioner of Rs. 300-430 not being in dispute, having been finally settled by the Supreme Court, the respondents were under an obligation to determine and appropriate revised scale of pay in respect to the Class-IV employees of this Court. It is indeed a pity that though the revised pay-scale had been made applicable to the employees of the Government and other Departments w.e.f Ist January, 1986, more than five years have elapsed but there has been no fixation with regard to the lowest rung of the employees of this Court viz., these who are in Class-IV.
11. In our opinion it cannot be disputed that the pay-scale of the Class-IV employees has to be determined pursuant to the Fourth Pay Commission Report. The said Report has been made applicable by the Government itself to the other employees of this Court and there is no reason as to why Class-IV employees should be excluded. In fact in the letter of the Union of India of 6th December, 1988 it has not been stated that appropriate scale will not be given to the petitioner but what has been stated is that the Government will take a decision only after the matter in the Supreme Court was decided. The Government, In our opinion, has failed to discharge its duty. It was incumbent upon the Government specially in view of our decision in Rohtas Kumar's case (supra) to fix appropriate pay-scales in the case of all the employees of this Court who had not so far been covered by the Fourth Pay Commission Report recommendation. We have, therefore, no alternative but to issue appropriate directions in this regard.
12. The only question which requires determination now is as to what is the appropriate scale which should be applied to the Class-IV employees As already noted, the then Chief Justice had recommended the revised scale of pay of Rs. 975-25-1150-EB-30-1540 which is Model 8 the compilation of in the Report. This Model 8 scale has been equated with two existing pre-revised scales. These two pre-revised pay-scales were of Rs. 260-8-340-10-430 and Rs. 290-6-326-8-350-EB-8-390 10-400. As already noted, the petitioner was in the existing pay-scale of Rs. 300-10-430. The start of the scale viz., Rs. 300/- is more than both the aforesaid existing scales which have already been equated with the revised scale of Rs. 975-1540. We further find that there is an existing scale in Model 9 of Rs. 260-8-300-EB-8-340-10-360-12-420-EB-12-480 which has been equated with the revised scale of Rs. 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660. The start of both the revised scales in Models 8 and 9 is the same viz., Rs. 975/-. The difference is only towards top of the scale. Whereas in Model 8 the maximum of the scale is Rs. 1540, in Model 9 the maximum is Rs. 1660/-. The petitioner and other Class-IV employees are in the pay-scale of Rs. 300-430. The start of the pay-scale is higher than the existing scales which have been equated to the revised scales in Model 8 and 9. In our opinion it will be appropriate if the petitioner and other Class-IV employees are given the revised scale of Model 9 viz., Rs. 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660. It is ture that the maximum of the pre-revised scale is lesser than the scale of Rs. 260-480 which has been equated with the revised scale in Model 9 but in the absence of there being an equivalent scale to Rs. 300-430 we had to undertake the exercise in order to see as to which is the nearer and most appropriate revised scale which should be applicable to Class-IV employees. In Models 7, 8 and 9 the minimum of the pre-existing scale was less than Rs. 300/-. It is only in Model 10 that the minimum of the pre-existing scale was more, i.e Rs. 330/-. The nearest, therefore, in our opinion, to the pre-existing scale of Rs. 300-430 would be the revised scale of Rs. 975-1660 in Model 9.
13. The petitioner and the other Class-IV employees should have got their pay fixed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 975-1660 w.e.f Ist January, 1986 For no fault of the petitioner and other Class-IV employees they have been deprived of the money which was due to them. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to two decisions of the Supreme Court in AIR 1985 SC 356 and AIR 1989 Vol. 3 Judgment Today 637. In both these cases while awarding money the Supreme Court directed interest to be paid. The first case was where pension had to be paid and the Supreme Court directed interest to be paid alongwith arrears of pension. The second case was where the Life Insurance Corporation had to pay the policy money and for the wrongful withholding of the money they were directed to pay 15% per annum interest.
14. In our opinion in the present case also the petitioner and the other Class-IV employees should be entitled to receive interest on the arrears of salary. Taking the clue from the LIC case we direct that the petitioner and other Class-IV employees of this Court should get interest@ 15% per annum.
15. For the aforesaid reasons this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner and other Class-IV employees of this Court in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 in accordance with the Central Civil Services (revised pay) Rules 1986. This pay should be fixed by the respondents within two months from today and arrears, if any, should be paid to the petitioner and other Class-IV employees alongwith interest @ 15% per annum within one month thereafter. The interest will be with effect from 6th December, 1988 when the Government wrote the letter not fixing the revised scale of Class-IV employees of this Court, till the date of payment.
16. There will be no order as to costs.
Petition allowed.
Alert