GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.versusB. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.

                         [201 OJ 6 S.C.R. 806


A                GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.
                                 v.
                      B. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 8273 of 2004)
                            MAY 11, 2010
B
         [MARKANDEY KATJU AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

        Service Law:

c         Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 - r. 7
     (1)(8) - Re-fixation of pay - Special pay - Entitlement of -
     Respondents were investigators as-on 01.01.1986 -
  . Promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendents after
     01.01.1986 - Grant of revised pay scale of 1600-2660 as
0 recommended by Fourth Pay Commission - Be1'efit of
    special pay of Rs. 751- p.m. as awarded by Board of Arbitration
    for the said post in their existing scale-Rs. 470-750 in fixing
     the scale - Entitlement of - Held: Respondents would be
    covered ulr. 7(1)(8) which covers employees whose existing
E emoluments include special pay, but special pay has not
    been continued with the revised scale of pay - As per FR
    22(a)(1) on promotion to a post carrying duties and
    responsibilities of greater importance, Government servant is
    entitled to his initial pay 'in the time scale of higher post' -
    Special pay of Rs. 751- p.m. was for the post of Assistant
F Superintendent in the existing scale of pay of Rs. 470-750
    irrespective of who held the post - The 1986 Rules and F. Rs.
    22 and 25 have to be read consistent with the equality clauses
    in Articles 14 and 16 - All Assistant Superintendents who are
   performing the same nature of duties and responsibilities
G would be entitled to special pay - Thus, respondents entitled
    to the benefit of special pay of Rs. 751- pm in fixation of its
    initial pay - Order of High Court upheld - Fundamental Rules
    22(a)(1) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 16.

                                 806
 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. B. ANIL KUMAR 807
                  & ORS.

       The respondents were working in the post of A
  Investigators, in NSSO, Government of India, in the pay-
  scale of ns.425-700 prior to 01.01.1986. The next higher
  post is of Assistant Superintendent. In the year 1978, the
  Assistant Superintendents raised a demand that the
  existing pay-scale of Rs.470-750 of the post of Assistant B
  Superintendents be raised to Rs.550-900 with effect from
  01.01.1978. The Board of Arbitration made the Award with
  effect from 01.05.1982 that the Assistant Superintendents
· be given pay at the existing scale of Rs.470-750 plus a
  special pay of Rs.75/- pm which would be counted as c
  pay. During pendency before the Board, the Central
  Fourth Pay Commission made recommendations that the
  pay-scale of Assistant Superintendents be revised to
  Rs.1600-2660 with effect from 01.01.1986. The Award of
  the Board was implemented. The respondents were
                                                              0
  promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendents after
  01.0f:1986 and were not given the benefit of the special
  pay and were only given the pay in the revised scale of
· Rs.1600-2660. The respondents challenged th~ same:
  The tribunal held that the respondents are entitled to the E
  re-fixation of their pay by merging the special pay of
  Rs.75/- with their basic pay in the then existing pay-scale
  of Rs.470-750 on the basis of the recommendations of the
  Fourth Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1986 and
  for subsequent corresponding revised pay scales on the
  basis of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay F
  Commission. The Division Bench of High Court directed
  that the respondents would be entitled to have the benefit
  of special pay of Rs.75 in the revised pay-scale of
  Rs.1600-2660--as recommended by the Fourth Pay
  Commission and the revised pay-scale of the G
  respondents as recommended by the Fifth Pay
  Commission will have to be appropriately fixed taking into
  consideration the special pay of Rs.75/- ·and its merger
  in the Fifth Pay Commission scales. Hence tile 'aPf.~al.
                                                              H
    808      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010) 6 S.C.R.


A         Dismissing the appeal, the Court
          HELD: 1.1. The High Court gave good reasons for
    coming to the conclusion that the respondents, who were
    promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent after
    01.01.1986, were entitled to have the benefit of Rs.75/- as
8   special pay in the revised pay-scale of Rs.1600-2660 that
    (1) in paragraphs 10.359, 10.360, 10.361 and 10.362 of the
    recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, which
    deal with the pay-scale of Assistant Superintendents in
    National Sample Survey Organization, Department of
C   Statistics, there is no reference to the pending
    proceedings before the Board of Arbitration and hence
    it is difficult to hold that the Fourth Pay Commission has
    taken into consideration the dispute regarding the pay-
    scale of Assistant Superintendents pending before the
D   Board of Arbitration; (2) the Board of Arbitration referred
    to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission
    that the pay-scale of Assistant Superintendents should
    be Rs.1600-2600 and yet the Board of Arbitration awarded
    a special pay of Rs.75/- per month for Assistant
E   Superintendents and did not restrict the grant of such
    special pay upto 01.01.1986; (3) the special pay of Rs.75/
    - per month was attached to the scale of pay of Assistant
    Superintendents and employees holding the post of
    Assistant Superintendent, whether prior to 01.01.1986 or
F   subsequent to 01.01.1986, were, therefore, entitled to the
    benefit of Rs.75/- towards special pay. [Para 10) [816-D-
    H; 817-A-B]
      1.2. The recommendations of the Fourth Pay
  Commission were implemented by the Central Civil
G Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986. Rule 7(1)(A) of the
  1986 Rules covers cases of employees whose existing
  emoluments do not include special pay, Rule 7(1)(B),
  covers cases of employees whose existing emoluments
  include special pay, but special pay has not been
H continued with the revised scale of pay and Rule 7(1 )(C)
  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. B. ANIL KUMAR 809
                  & ORS.

 covers cases of employees whose existing emoluments              A
 include special pay, but in whose case special pay has
 been continued with the revised scale of pay. All those
 employees wh.o were Assistant Superintendents as on
 01.01.1986 for whom special pay was awarded by the
 Board of Arbitration with effect from 01.05.1982 and for         B
 whom special pay did not continue with the revised scale
 of pay would, therefore, be covered under Rule 7(1)(B)
 and not under Rule 7(1 )(A) or 7(1 )(C) of the 1986 Rules.
 This is the reason why the Ministry of Finance,
 Department of Expenditure, in its letter dated 04.07.1989        c
 directed that pay in the revised scale of Rs.1600-2660 with
 effect from 01.01.1986 will be fixed under Rule 7(1 )(B) of
 the 1986 Rules. (Para 11] (817-C-G]

       1.3. A plain reading of F.R. 22(a)(1) would show that
  where a Government servant holding a post is promoted           D
  to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of
  greater importance than those attaching to the post held
  by him, "his initial pay in the time scale of the higher
  post''. shall be fixed at the stage next above the notional
  pay arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the          ~
  lower post held by him regularly by an increment at the
. stage at which such pay has accrued. Thus, on
  promotion to a post carrying duties and responsibilities
  of greater importance, a Government servant is entitled
  to his initial pay "in the time scale of the higher post". In   F
  the instant case, the higher post to which the
  respondents were promoted after 01.01.1986 was the
  post of Assistant Superintendent. If, therefore, the special
  pay of Rs.75/- as was awarded by the Board of Arbitration
  is for the higher post of Assistant Superintendent, the         G
  respondents would be entitled to the benefit of special
  pay, but if the special pay was only for the Assistant
  Superintendents then serving, and not for the post of
  Assistant Superintendent, the respondents would not be
  entitled to the benefit of special pay having been              H
   810     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 6 S.C.R.


A promoted after 01.01.1986. [Para 12] [818-E-H; 819-A-B]

       1.4. 'Special Pay' has been defined in F.R. 25 as an
  addition, of the nature of pay, to the emoluments of a post
  or of a Government servant, granted in consideration of
8 (a) the specially arduous nature of the duties; or (b) a
  specific addition to the work or responsibility. Hence,
  special pay can be attached to either 'a post' or 'a
  Government servant'. [Para 13] [819-B-C]

       1.5. It is clear from a perusal of the reference and the
C award of the Board of Arbitration that the special pay of
  Rs.75/- per month was for the post of Assistant
  Superintendent in the existing scale of pay of Rs.470-750
  irrespective of who held the post. Therefore, the
  respondents, who have been promoted to the post of
D Assistant Superintendent after 01.01.1986, would be
  entitled to the benefit of special pay of Rs.75/- per month
  in the fixation of its initial pay. [Para 14] [819-G-H]

       1.6. The 1986 Rules and F.Rs. 22 and 25 have to be
E read consistent with the equality clauses in Articles 14
  and 16 of the Constitution and so read, all Assistant
  Superintendents who are performing the same nature of
  duties and responsibilities would be entitled to the
  special pay and to deny such benefit of special pay to the
  respondents, who have been promoted to the post of
F Assistant Superintendents after 01.01.1986, would violate
  of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. [Para 15] [820-
  A-B]
       1.7. Once the Court holds that under the 1986 Rules
G read with the Fundamental Rules and Articles 14 and 16
  of the Constitution, the respondents were entitled to the
  benefit of special pay along with the revised scale of pay
  of Rs.1600-2660 as recommended by the Fourth Pay
  Commission, the court can itself grant the relief and need
H not direct the respondents to move the Government for
  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. B. ANIL KUMAR 811
                  & ORS.

 reconsideration for fixation of their pay-scales. The order         A
 of High Court is upheld. [Paras 18 and 19] [821-E-F]

      Telecommunication Research Centre Scientific Officers'
 (Class I) Association and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1987)
 1 SCC 582; M.P. Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police,             B
 C.B.I. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 592,
 referred to.

                       Case Law Reference:

      (1987) 1 sec 592          Referred to.        Para.8, 16
                                                                     c
      (1987) 1 sec 582          Referred to.        Para 8, 17

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
 8273 of 2004.

      from the Judgment & Order dated 12.08.2003 of the Higl) . D -
 Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ
 Petition No. 7596 of 2003.

     Indira Jaisingh, ASG, T.S. Doabia, Ashok Bhan,
 Shailendra Saini, Samridhi Sinha, Sonam Anand (for 8.V.             E
 Balaram Das) for the Appellants.

     P.S. Narsimla, S. Uday Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan,
 Anandita Pujari (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.), for the Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     F
      A. K. PATNAIK, J.1. This is an appeal against the
 judgment and order dated 12.08.2003 of the Division Bench
 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.7596 of
 2003 (for short 'the impugned judgment').
                                                                     G
      2. The relevant facts very briefly are that the respondents
· herein were working in the post of Investigators in the National
  Sample Survey Organisation, Government of India·, Ministry of
  Planning and Implementation, Department of Statistics at
  Hyderabad, in the pay-scale of Rs.425-700 prior to                 H
    812    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 6 S.C.R.


A 01.01.1986. The next higher post is the post of Assistant
  Superintendent. In the year 1978, there was a demand by the
  Assistant Superintendents working in the operation units under
  the Director, National Sample Survey Organisation, that the
  existing pay-scale of Rs.470-750 of the post of Assistant
B Superintendents be raised to Rs.550-900 with effect from
  01.01.1978. The demand was referred to the Board of
  Arbitration for adjudication on 12.02.1985. When the reference
  was pending before the Board of Arbitration, the Central Fourth
  Pay Commission made recommendations that the pay-scale
c of Assistant Superintendents be revised to Rs.1600-2660 with
  effect from 01.01.1986. Thereafter, on 05.01.1989 the Board
  of Arbitration made the Award with effect from 01.05.1982 to
  the effect that the Assistant Superintendents be given pay at
  the existing scale of Rs.4 70-750 plus a special pay of Rs. 75/-
D per month and this special pay be counted as pay for all
  purposes as per the rules. On 04.07.1989, the Ministry of
  Finance, Department of Expenditure, issued an order that the
  Mioistry has agreed to the proposal of the Department of
  Statistics to implement the Award of the Board of Arbitration
  and allow special pay of Rs.75/- with effect from 01.05.1982
E to the Assistant Superintendents in the Operation Units of the.
  National Sample Survey Organisation, but the special pay will
  continue upto 31.12.1985 and will not be available in the higher
  revised scale of Rs.1600-2660 with effect from 01.01.1986.
  The respondents who were promoted to the post of Assistant
F Superintendents after 01.01.1986 were not given the benefit of
  the special pay and were only given the pay in the revised scale
  of Rs.1600-2660 as recommended by the Fourth Pay
  Commission.

G     3. Aggrieved, the respondents moved the Central
  Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, (for short 'the
  Tribunal') in O.A. No. 827 of 2002 and by order dated
  22.01.2003 the Tribunal allowed the O.A. declaring that the
  respondents are entitled to the re-fixation of their pay by
H merging the special pay of Rs.75/- with their basic pay in the
 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. B. ANIL KUMAR 813
          & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

then existing pay-scale of Rs.470-750 on the basis of the           A
recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission with effect
from 01.01.1986 and for subsequent corresponding revised pay
scales on the basis of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay
Commission and directed the appellants to take steps to get
the pay of the respondents re-fixed accordingly and further         B
directed that the respondents shall be paid all the arrears of
salary as a result of re-fixation of their pay.

      4. The appellants challenged the order dated 22.01.2003
of the Tribunal before the High Court and by the impugned           C
judgment, the Division Bench while sustaining the order of the
Tribunal modified the same directing that the respondents
would be entitled to have the benefit of special pay of Rs.75 in
the revised pay-scale of Rs.1600-2660 as recommended by
the Fourth Pay Commission and the revised pay-scale of the
respondents as recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission              D.
will have to be appropriately fixed taking·into consideration the
special pay of Rs. 75/- and its merger in the Fifth Pay
Commission scales.

     5. Miss Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor General   E
appearing for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal and
the High Court failed to appreciate that the Fourth Pay
Commission, while recommending revision of the pay-scale of
Assistant Superintendents from Rs.470-750 to Rs.1600-2660
with effect from 01.01.1986 had taken into consideration the        F
duties and responsibilities of the Assistant Superintendents
and, therefore, the special pay of Rs.75/- given to Assistant
Superintendents prior to 01.01.1986 pursuant to the Award of
the Board of Arbitration would not be available to those who
were promoted as Assistant Superintendents after 01.01.1986.        G
She submitted that the respondents who were promoted to the
post of Assistant Superintendent after 01.01.1986 would
therefore not be entitled to the benefit of the special pay of
Rs. 75/- as awarded by the Board of Arbitration for fixation of
their scale. She submitted that the benefit of Rule 7(1 )(B) of     H
    814      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 6 S.C.R.


A the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 (for short
  'the 1986 Rules') will be available only to those who were in
  receipt of the special pay as on 01.01.1986 and as the
  respondents were not Assistant Superintendents as on
  01.01.1986 and were not in receipt of the special pay of Rs.75/
B - as awarded by the Board of Arbitration, they were not entitled
  to the benefit of the special pay. She further submitted that the
  respondents are also not entitled to the benefit of Rule 7(1 )(B)
  of the 1986 Rules as the rule only applies to those who are in
  receipt of special pay granted by the Fourth Pay Commission
c and Assistant Superintendents were not given any special pay
  by the Fourth Pay Commission. She submitted that the pay of
  the respondents who were promoted as Assistant
  Superintendents after 01.01.1986 has to be fixed in
  accordance with F.R. 22(a)(1) and not in accordance with Rule
  7(1) A or Rule 7(1)B of the 1986 Rules.
0
        6. Miss Jaising submitted that some of the aggrieved
  Assistant Superintendents, who have been denied the benefit
  of special pay of Rs.75/-, had filed O.A. No.695 of 1990 before
  the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, and O.A.
E No.1232 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
  Hyderabad Bench, and the two Benches of the Tribunal
  disposed of the O.As. with the direction to the applicants to
  approach the Anomalies Committee of the respective Pay
  Commissions. She submitted that in the present case also the
F Tribunal and the High Court, instead of allowing the benefit of
  special pay to the respondents, should have directed the
  respondents to approach the authorities for reconsideration of
  the fixation of their pay-scale after giving the benefit of special
  pay as awarded by the Board of Arbitration.
G
        7. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for the
  respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal and
  the High Court had given good reasons to hold that the
  respondents who were promoted to the post of Assistant
G Superintendent after 01.01.1986 were also entitled to the
r




    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. B. ANIL KUMAR 815
             & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
    benefit of special pay of Rs. 75/- per month as awarded by the        A
    Board of Arbitration in fixation of their pay in the revised pay-
    scales as recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission. He
    further submitted that the Award dated 05.01.1989 of tile
    Board of Arbitration itself states that the special pay of Rs.75/
    - per month as awarded will count for all purposes as per rules       B
    and, therefore, will have to be counted for the purpose of fixation
    of the revised pay-scale in accordance with Rule 7(1 )(B) of the
    1986 Rules. He submitted that the order dated 04.07.1989
    of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, also
    states that the special pay will be recognized and be                 c
    implemented for the purpose of revision according to Rule
    7(1 )(B) of the 1986 Rules. He argued that Rule 7(1 )(B) of the
    1986 Rules provides that the special pay will be added to the
    existing emoluments for the purpose of fixation of the revised
    pay-scale and hence the respondents who had been promoted
                                                                          0
    as Assistant Superintendents were entitled to this benefit of
    addition of special pay of Rs.75/- per month in the existing
    emoluments for fixing their pay in the revised scale.

         8. Mr. Narasimha also argued that there cannot be different
    pay for persons working in the same post of Assistant E
    Superintendents as this would amount to discrimination and
    would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
    India. He relied on the decisions of this Court in
    Telecommunication Research Centre Scientific Officers'
    (Class I) Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1987) F
    1 SCC 582] and M.P. Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police,
    C.B. I. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1987) 1 SCC 592] for
    the proposition that there can be no discrimination in matters ·
    of pay. He submitted that the Assistant Superintendents have
    been given the benefit of special pay of Rs.75/- after G
    01.01.1986 and that their revised pay has been fixed
    accordingly, whereas the respondents who have been
    promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent after
    01.01.1986 have been denied the benefit of special pay while
    fixing their revised scale of pay and this amounts to H
   816      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 6 S.C.R.


A discrimination against the respondents.

       9. Mr. Narasimha finally submitted that the respondents
  were not parties to O.A. No.695 of 1990 or O.A. No.1232 of
  199"7 in which directions for reconsideration were given by the
B Tribunal and that they had separately moved the Central
  Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, and the Tribunal,
  after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case,
  have directed the appellants to give the benefit of special pay
  of Rs. 75/- while re-fixing the revised pay-scale of the
  respondents on the basis of the recommendations of the Fourth
C Pay Commission and the directions given by the Tribunal in O.A.
  No.695 of 1990 and O.A. No.1232 of 1997 to approach the
  authorities for reconsideration were not binding on them.

        10. We have read the impugned judgment and we find that
D the High Court has given good reasons for coming to the
  conclusion that the respondents, who were promoted to the
  post of Assistant Superintendent after 01.01.1986, were
  entitled to have the benefit of Rs.75/- as special pay in the
  revised pay-scale of Rs.1600-2660. The reasons given by the
E High Court are: (1) in paragraphs 10.359, 10.360, 10.361 and
  10.362 of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission,
  which deal with the pay-scale of Assistant Superintendents in
  National Sample Survey Organisation, Department of
  Statistics, there is no reference to the pending proceedings
F before the Board of Arbitration and hence it is difficult to hold
  that the Fourth Pay Commission has taken into consideration
  the dispute regarding the pay-scale of Assistant
  Superintendents pending before the Board of Arbitration; (2)
  On the other hand, the Board of Arbitration has in its
G deliberations quoted in the impugned judgment referred to the
  recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission that the pay-
  scale of Assistant Superintendents should be Rs.1600-2600
  and yet the Board of Arbitration has awarded a special pay of
  Rs.75/- per month for Assistant Superintendents and has not
  restricted the grant of such special pay upto 01.01.1986; (3)
H
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. 8. ANIL KUMAR 817
         & ORS. [AK. PATNAIK, J.]
The special pay of Rs. 75/- per month was attached to the scale    A
of pay of Assistant Superintendents and employees holding the
post of Assistant Superintendent, whether prior to 01.01.1986
or subsequent to 01.01.1986, were, therefore, entitled to the
benefit of Rs. 75/- towards special pay.
                                                                   8
      11. We would like to give, in addition, a few more reasons
in support of the conclusion of the High Court that the
respondents, who were promoted to the post of Assistant
Superintendents after 01.01.1986, are entitled to have the
benefit of Rs. 75/- as special pay in the revised pay-scale of C
Rs.1600-2660 as recommended by the Fourth Pay
Commission. The recommendations of the Fourth Pay
Commission were implemented by the 1986 Rules. Rule
7(1)(A) of the 1986 Rules covers cases of employees whose
existing emoluments do not include special pay, Rule 7(1)(8)
covers cases of employees whose existing emoluments include D
special pay, but special pay has not been continued with the
revised scale of pay and Rule 7(1 )(C) covers cases of
employees whose existing emoluments include special pay, but
in whose case special pay has been continued with the revised
scale of pay. All those employees who were Assistant E
Superintendents as on 01.01.1986 for whom special pay was
awarded by the Board of Arbitration with effect from ·
01.05.1982 and for whom special pay did not continue with the
revised scale of pay would, therefore, be covered under Rule
7(1 )(8) and not under Rule 7(1 )(A) or 7(1 )(C) of the 1986 Rules. F
This is the reason why the Ministry of Finance, Department of
Expenditure, in its letter dated 04.07.1989 directed that pay in
the revised scale of Rs.1600-2660 with effect from 01.01.1986
will be fixed under Rule 7(1)(8) of the 1986 Rules.
                                                                    G
    · 12. The contention of the appellants, however, is that the
respondents, who were Investigators as on 01.01.1986 and
were promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent after
01.01.1986, would not 6e covered under Rule 7(1 )(8) of the
1986 Rules and that on such promotion their pay would be fixed H
    818       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 6 S.C.R.


A   under F.R. 22(a)(1), the relevant portion of which is quoted
    herein below:

          "F.R.22: The initial pay of a Government servant who is
          appointed to a post on a time scale of pay is regulated
          as follows:-
B
          (a)(1): Where a Government servant holding a post, other
          than a tenure post, in a substantive or temporary or
          officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a
          substantive, temporary or officiating capacity, as the case
c         may be, subject to the fulfillment of the eligibility conditions
          as prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules, to another
          post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater
          importance than those attaching to the post held by him,
          his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be
D         fixed at the stage next above the notional pay arrived at
          by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by
          him regularly by an increment at the stage at which such
          pay has accrued or rupees twenty five only, (now Rs.100)
          which is more."
E
  A plain reading of F.R. 22(a)(1), quoted above, would show that
  where a Government servant holding a post is promoted to
  another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater
  importance than those attaching to the post held by him, "his
F initial pay in the time scale of the higher post" shall be fixed at
  the stage next above the notional pay arrived at by increasing
  his pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly by an
  increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued. Thus,
  on promotion to a post carrying duties and responsibilities of
  greater importance, a Government servant is entitled to his
G initial pay "in the time scale of the higher post". In the present
  case, the higher post to which the respondents were promoted
  after 01.01.1986 was the post of Assistant Superintendent. If,
  therefore, the special pay of Rs.75/- as has been awarded by
  the Board of Arbitration is for the higher p0st of Assistant
H Superintendent, the respondents would be entitled to the
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. B. ANIL KUMAR 819
         & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
benefit of special pay, but if the special pay was only for the     A
Assistant Superintendents then serving, and not for the post of
Assistant Superintendent, the respondents would not be entitled
to the benefit of special pay having been promoted after
01.01.1986.
                                                                    B
     13. 'Special Pay' has been defined in F.R. 25 as:

     "an addition, of the nature of pay, to the emoluments of a
     post or of a Government servant, granted in consideration
     of (a) the specially arduous nature of the duties; or (b) a
     specific addition to the work or responsibility".              c
Hence, special pay can be attached to either 'a post' or 'a
Government servant'.

    14. We find that the reference that was made to the Board
of Arbitration was whether the pay-scale of Assistant               D
Superintendent of the Field Operations Division of NSSO,
Government of India, be revised from the existing scale of
Rs.470-750 to Rs.550-900 with effect from 01.01.1978 and the
Board of Arbitration gave the following Award:
                                                                    E
    ''The Assistant Superintendents of the FOD of the NSSO,
    Government of India, shall be given pay at the existing
    scale of Rs.470-750 plus a special pay of Rs,75/- per
    month. This special pay shall count as pay for all purposes
    as per 'rules. This award shall take effect from 1st May        F
    1982"

It is thus clear from a perusal bf the reference and the award
of the Board of Arbitration that the special pay of Rs.75/- per
month was for the post of Assistant Superintendent in the
existing scale of pay of Rs.470-750 is irrespective of who held     G
the post. Therefore, the respondents, who have been promoted
to the post of Assistant Superintendent after 01.01.1986, would
be entitled to the benefit of special pay of Rs.75/- per month in
the fixation of its initial pay.
                                                                    H
    820      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A       15. In our considered opinion, the 1986 Rules and F.Rs.
  22 and 25 have to be read consistent with the equality clauses
  in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and so read, all
  Assistant Superintendents who are performing the same nature
  of duties and responsibilities would be entitled to the special
B pay and to deny such benefit of special pay to the respondents,
  who have been promoted to the post of Assistant
  Superintendents after 01.01.1986, would violate of Articles 14
  and 16 of the Constitution. In support of this view, we may now
  cite the authorities.
c       16. In M.P. Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I.
    & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra), this Court held:

          "10. From the foregoing discussion it emerges that the
          Special Pay that was being paid to all the officers in the
D         cadre of Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy
          Superintendents of Police in the Central Investigating Units
          of the Central Bureau of Investigation has nothing to do with
          any compensati0n for which the deputationists may be
          entitled either on the ground of their richer experience or
E         on the ground of their displacement from their parent
          departments in the various States, but it relates only to the
          arduous nature of the duties that is being performed by all
          of them irrespective of the fact whether they belong to the
          category of the "deputationists" or to the category of the
F         "non-deputationists". That being the position, the
          classification of the officers working in the said cadres into
          two groups, namely, deputationists and non-deputationists
          for paying different rates of Special Pay does not pass the
          test of classification permissible under Articles 14 and 16
          of the Constitution of India since it does not bear any
G
          rational relation to the object of classification."
         17. Similarly, in Telecommunication Research Centre
    Scientific Officers' (Class I) Association & Ors. v. Union of
    India & Ors. (supra), this Court held:
H
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. 8. ANIL KUMAR 821
         & ORS. (A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
       "10. Following the decision of this Court in Randhir Singh        A
       v. Union oflndia ((1982) 1 SCC 618) and the decision
       of this Court in {M. P. Singh v. Union of India {1987) 1 SCC
       592 {Writ Petition Nos. 13097-13176 of 1984 decided
       today) we hold that the direct recruits {to which category
       the petitioners belong) in the Telecommunication Research         B
       Centre are entitled to the Special Pay at the same rates
       at which it is paid to the transferred officers working in that
       centre with effect from the date from which the transferred
       officers have been drawing the Special Pay. We
       accordingly direct Respondent 1 - Union of India to pay           c
       the Special Pay to the direct recruits with effect from the
       date on which the transferred officers commenced to draw
       the Special Pay up to date and to continue to pay it in future
       also as long as the transferred officers continue to get it.
       The arrears of the Special Pay up to date payable to the          0
       direct recruits shall be paid within four months from today.·

      18. Once the Court holds that under the 1986 Rules read
with the Fundamental Rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution, the respondents were entitled to the benefit of
special pay along with the revised scale of pay of Rs.1600-              E
2660 -as recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission, the
Court can itself grant the relief and need not direct the
respondents to move the Government for reconsideration for
fixation of their pay-scales.
                                                                         F
    19. For the aforesaid reasons, we sustain the impugned
judgment of the High Court and dismiss this appeal with no
order as to costs.

N.J.                                            Appeal dismissed.