Holding

The appellant was deemed to have elected the revised pay scale from 1 January 1986 and was therefore entitled to the Rs. 60 increment in the revised scale, fixing his basic pay at Rs. 1700.

Summary

Chander Bhan Gill, appointed as Assistant (Legal) in 1985, completed one year of service on 26 January 1986 and became eligible for an annual increment. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 came into force on 1 January 1986, and the Government issued a clarification on 4 May 1987 stating that increments accruing on that date should be granted in the pre‑revised scale before fixing pay in the revised scale. Gill claimed the increment should be granted in the revised scale (Rs. 60) and his basic pay fixed at Rs. 1700, but the Government granted only the pre‑revised increment (Rs. 15) and fixed his pay at Rs. 1640. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application, leading to this appeal. The Supreme Court held that, because Gill did not exercise the option under Rule 5, he was deemed to have elected the revised scale from 1 January 1986, making him entitled to the increment in the revised scale under Rules 6(3), 7 and 8. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, directing the Government to fix Gill's basic pay at Rs. 1700 with effect from 1 January 1986 and to grant consequential benefits.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant, having not exercised the option under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986, is deemed to have elected the revised pay scale from 1 January 1986.
Whether the annual increment accruing on 26 January 1986 should be granted in the revised pay scale under Rules 6(3), 7 and 8.
Whether the Government's clarification dated 4 May 1987 can override the statutory provisions of the Rules.

Subjects

service lawcentral civil servicesrevised pay rulesannual incrementpay fixationoption clausegovernment servantadministrative law

Judgment

A CHANDER BHAN GILL
v.
UNION OF INDIA

JULY 14, 1994

B
(KULDIP SINGH, J.S. VERMA AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.]

.Service Law: Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986-:ll.ules
5, 6(3), 7 & 8 and Office Memorandum dated 4.5.1987-Fixation of pay in
C the revised scale of pay and annual increment falling on the same day-Held
entitled to increment in the revised scale of pay.

The appellant and one 'D' were selected and appointed as Assistants
(Legal) In the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice
under the Respondent-Union Government on 25.1.1985 and 4.3.1985
D respectively. The pay scale for the post was 425-800 and it was revised to
1640·2900 with effect from 1.1.1986. Based on the recommendation of the ·
Third Pay Commission, the Respondent decided to grant the annual
Increments from the first of the month In which the increment falls due.
According to the Offict Memorandum dated 4.5.1987 Issued by the
Respondent, It was clarified that the Increment In the pre-revised scale was
E to be allowed first on 1.1.1986 and thereafter to fix the pay in the revised
scale. Accordingly the appellant's increments which fell due on 26.1.1986
was advanced to 1.1.86 and his revised pay was fixed of Rs. 1640 after grant
of increment in the pre-revised scale. In so far as 'D' was concerned his
pay was fixed &t Rs. 1640 as on 1.1.1986 and he was granted annual
F increment on 1.3.1986 raising his pay to Rs. 1700.

Appellant claimed that his annual Increment in the revised pay scale
and the respondent rejected the same. Appellant filed an application
before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal having dis·
G missed the application the appellant prefered the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. The appellant was entitled to the grant of Rs. 60 as
increment with effect from January 1, 1986 and his basic pay in the revised
H scale should have been fixed at Rs. 1700 from January 1, 1986. [595·H]
590
C.B. GILL v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] · 591

2.1. The appellant did not give any option under rule 5 of the Central A
Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 and as such under 6(3) he bacame
entitled to the revised scale of pay "with effect on and from the 1st day of
January, 1986'. Since the minimum of the revised scale of the appellant
was more than the amount worked out Rule 7(A)(i)(ii) he became entitled
under rule 7(A)(a) to be fixed at the minimum of the revised scale. It is B
clear from the combined reading of rules 6 & 7 of the rules that the
appellant was entitled to be fixed at Rs. 1640 as his basic pay with effect
from January 1, 1986 in the revised scale. The pre-revised scale ceased to
operate on December 31, 1985. [593·D·E]

2.2. The language of rule 8 makes it clear that the appellant, whose C
annual increment becanie due on January 1,1986, was entitled to the grant
of the said increment in the revised pay scale. [595-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3958 of
1992. D
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.4.1992 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2254 of 1991.

S.M. Hooda and Bhal Singh Malik for the Appellant.
E
K.Lahiri, Ms. Niranjana Singh and Ms. Anil Katiyar for the Respon-
dent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KULDIP SINGH, J. Chander Bhan Gill (Gill) joined Central F
Government Service on January 25, 1985. The Central Civil Services
(revised pay) Rules, 1986 (the rules) came into force on January 1, 1986.
0_11 completion of one year's service Gill was granted annual increment in
the eicisting scale (unrevised) His claim for grant of annual increment in
the revised pay scale was rejected by the Government. Gill challenged the G
action of the Government by way of an application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the tribunal). The
tribunal by its judgment date April 13, 1992 dismissed the application. This
appeal by Gill is against the judgment of the tribunal.

We may notice the necessary facts. Gill was selected for appointment H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A as Assistant (Legal) in the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law
and Justice, Government of India. He joined the Ministry as such on
January 25, 1985 in the pay scale of 425-15-500-EB-15-560-20-700-EB-25-
800. One S.S. Dhaiya was also selected and appointed as Assistant (Legal)
along with the appellant. He Joined service on March 4, 1985 in the same
B pay scale.

The existing pay scale for the post of Assistant (Legal) (425- 800] was
revised to 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 under the rules with effect from
January 1, 1986. Gill completed one year's of service on January 26, 1986
and became entitled to the grant of an annual increment. The short
c question for consideration is whether he was entitled to the increment in
the revised scale of pay (Rs. 60) or in the unrevised scale (Rs. 15).

The Government of India Instructions contained in the office
memorandum dated January 7, 1971 are as under : -
D
"The undersigned is directed to invite a reference on the recom-
mendation of the Third Pay Commission contained in Para 29 of
the Chapter 8 in Volume I of their Report to the effect that in
future, an increment should be granted from the !st of the month
in which it falls due instead of from the actual date on which it
E
accrues, and to say that Government have accepted the aforesaid
recommendation of the Commission vide item No. 5 in the an-
nexure appended to the Resolution No. 70(34)-Imp. Cell dated
1.11.1973. The sanction of the President is accordingly conveyed
hereby to the increment of employees being admitted from the !st
F of the month in which it would fall due under the operation of the
General rules and orders regulating increments.

2. These orders shall take effect from !st November, 1973 and shall
cover only Central Government employees in Classes II, III and
G IV.11

The Government of India issued office memorandum dated May 4,
1987 wherein various clarifications in respect of the rules were given. The
clarification at serial number 1 of the memorandum, which is relevant, is
H as under:-
C.B. GILL v. U.0.1. (KULDIP SINGH, J.] 593

"SI. A
Points raised Clarifications
No.
1 2 3
1. In case of a Government servant whose Increment in the
increment accrued in the pre-revised scale pre-revised scale is
on 1.1.1986, whether the increment in the to be allowed first B
pre-revised scale is to be allowed first and on 1.1.86 and pay
pay fixed in the revised scale under f1Xed in the revised
CCS/(RP) Rules, 1986 later ~r pay fixed in scale there after.
the revised scale first and increment
allowed later in the revised scale. c
The appellant completed one year's service on January 26, 1986 and
as such an increment accrued to him on the said date but keeping in view
the Government instructions dated January 7, 1971 he was to be given the
increment from January 1, 1986. Relying upon the clarification dated May
4, 1987 the Government of India granted the increment to the appellant in D
the pre-revised scale. Rs. 15 were added to his basic pre~revised pay of Rs.
425 thereby making a total bf Rs. 440. After doing the exercise of granting
him increment in the pre-revised scale he was given the revised pay scale
and his basic pay on January 1, 1986 was fixed as Rs. 1640.

It is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the
E
clarification dated May 4, 1987 is contrary to the rules. The clarifications
are, ordinarily, issued with a view to remove the anomalies in the working
of the rules. In the facts of this case, however, the clarification has - rather
- created an anomaly. We see no logic in the clarification. It is applicable
only to the Government servants whose increment accrued on January 1, F
1986. All those who earned the increment any time between Febmaryl,
1986 to December 31, 1986 were given the increment in the revised scale.
Had the appellant joined in the month of February 1985 or thereafter he
would have got the increment in the revised scale. As mentioned above S.S.
Dhaiya was selected and appointed along with the appellapt. He joined on G
March 4, 1985 and was given his annual increment with effect from March
1, 1986 in the revised scale. The Government action based on the clarifica-
tion dated May 4, 1987 has obviously worked to the detriment of the
appellant.

We may examine the appellant's claim under the rules. Rules 5, 6(3), H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A 7 & 8 of the rules, to the extent relevant, are reproduced hereunder :

S. Drawal of pay in the revised scales.

Save as other\vise provided in these rules, a Government ser-
vant shall draw pay in the revised scale applicable to the post to
B which he is appointed :

Provided that a Government servant may elect to _continue to
draw pay in the existing scale until the date on which he earns his
next or any subsequent increment in the existing scale or until he
vacates his post or ceases to draw pay that scale ............................. .
c
6. Exercise of option

6(3). If the intimation regarding option is not received within the
time mentioned in sub-rule (1), the Government servant shall be
deemed to have elected to be governed by the revised scale of pay
D
with effect on and from the 1st day of January, 1986.

7. Fixation of initial place in the revised scale

(1) The initial pay of a Government servant who elects, or is
E deemed to have elected under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 to be
governed by the revised scale on and from the 1st day of January,
. 1986 shall, unless in any case the President by special order
otherwise directs, be fixed separately in respect of his substantive
pay in the permanent post on which he holds a lien or would have
held a lien if it had not been suspended, and in respect of his
F pay in the officiating post held by him, in the following manner,
namely:-

(A) in the case of all employee,-

(i) an amount respresenting 20 per cent of the basic pay in the
G
existing scale, subject to a minimum of Rs. 75 shall be added to
. the "existing emoluments" of the employee;

(ii) after the existing emoluments have been so increased, the
pay shall thereafter be fixed in the revised scale at the stage next
H above the amount thus computed :
C.B. GILL v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 595

Provided that - A

(a) if the minimum of the revised scale is more than the amount
so arrived at, the pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the revised
scale;

(b) if.the amount so arrived aUs more than the maximum of B
the revised scale, the pay shall be fixed at the maximum of that
scale.

8. Date of next increment in the revised scale

The next increment of a Government servant whose pay has
been fixed in the revised scale in accordance with sub-rule (1) of
Rule 7 shall be granted on the date he would have drawn his
increment, had he continued in the existing scale : D

It is not disputed that the appellant did not give any option under
rule 5 of the rules and as such under rule 6(3) he became entitled to the
revised scale of pay "with effect on and from the 1st day of January, 1986" E
Since the minimum of the revised scale of the appellant was more than the
amount worked out under Rule 7(A) (i)(ii) he became entitled under rule
7 (A)(a) to be fixed at the minimum of the revised scale. It is clear from
the combined reading of rules 6 & 7 of the rules that the appellant was
entitled to be fixed at Rs. 1640 as his basic pay with effect from January 1, F
1986 in the revised scale. The pre-revised scale ceased to operate on
December 31, 1985. Rule 8 of the rules clearly lays down that "the next
increment of a Government servant whose pay has been fixed in the revised
scale in accordance with sub-rule (1) of shall 7 shall be granted on the date
he would have drawn his increment, had he continued in the existing scale'. G
The language of the rule makes it clear that the appellant, whose annual
increment became due on January 1, 1986, was entitled to the grant of the
said increment in the revised pay scale. We are, therefore, of the view that
the appellant-Gill was entitled to the grant of Rs. 60 as increment with
effect from January 1, 1986 and his basic pay in the revised scale should
have been fJXed at Rs. 1700 from January 1, 1986. H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A We allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the tribunal. We
allow the application filed by Gill before the tribunal in the above terms.
We direct the respondents to fix the pay of the appellant as Rs. 1700 with
effect January 1, 1986 and give him all the consequential benefits. This
should be done within three months from the date of the receipt of this
B judgment. The appellant shall be entitled to his costs which we quantify as
Rs. 10,000.

G.N. Appeal allowed.