K. BALARAMANversusCHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD AND ORS.

              [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1043


                      K. BALARAMAN                                 A
                               v.
         CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD AND ORS.
             (Civil Appeal No.6647 of 2003)
                   DECEMBER 14, 2010
                                                                   B
  [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.)

     Service Law: Increments ..., Non-inclusion of, in the basic
pay - Promotion and confirmation to the rank of Stock
Verifiers in Railways - Stock Verifiers given incentives on        C
passing the prescribed examination - Appellant passed such
examination and given three increments - Held: The
additional increments cannot be treated a part of the basic
pay but only as a separate element which will not count for
the purpose of calculating DA etc.                                 D.
     The Stock Verifiers in the Railways were given
incentives on passing the prescribed examination. The
appellant passed such examination and was also given
three advance increments. The respondent-Board in its              E
communication dated 25.07 .1995 categorically stated that
three advance increments granted to the Stock Verifiers
for passing the examination may be treated as additional
increment and cannot be treated as part of the basic pay.
Another communication was issued on 08.05.1996
wherein it was ordered that additional increment will not          F
be treated as part of basic pay and will not be reckoned
for calculating the Dearness Allowance. Against the said
communication, the appellant filed original application
before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the additional
increment will be forming part of the basic pay of the             G
individual and the appellant would be entitled to the
consequential benefits. The High Court, however, held
that the increments cannot be treated as part of the basic

                             1043                                  H
     1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


P.   pay, but only as a separate. element which will not count
     for the purpose of calculating the D.A. etc .. The instant
     appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court.

         Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B        HELD: The Tribunal erroneously held that three
     additional increments will form part of the basic pay. The
     High Court was fully justified in setting aside the
     judgment of the Tribunal. [Para 9] [1047-C-D]

c        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
     6647 of 2003. ·

         From the Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2002 of the
     High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 4956
     of 1999.
D
         A.T.M. Sampath and T.S. Shanti for the Appellant.

          A. Mariarputham, Ch. Shamsuddin Khan and A.K. Sharma
     (for Anil Katiyar) for the Respondents.
E        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. This appeal is directed
     against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court
     of Judicature at Madras dated 23rd April, 2002 in Writ Petition
F    No.4956 of 1999 along with other connected petitions.         ·

          2. Bn~f facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal
     are as under :

       3. The appellant was working in Class 'C' with the
G respondent no.1 - Railway Board. The post of Stock Verifiers
  in the railways are to be filled from the category of Clerks
  Grade I, Selection Grade Clerks and Sub-heads from Class 'C'.
  Reply filed by the Railway Board before the Centtal

H
  K. BALARAMAN v. CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD 1045
       AND ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench while dealing with the       A
"Promotion to and confirmation to the rank of Stock Verifiers"
mentioned as under :

     "(1) Promotion of persons holding substantively posts of
   . Clerks in the offices of the Financial Adviser and Chief · 8
     Accounts Officers to the rank of Stock Verifiers will be on
     considerations on seniority and merit including fitness for
     outdoor work. In the case of Accounts Clerks promotion
     to the rank of Stock Verifiers will not be made unless they
     have passed the examination prescribed in Appendix-2. C
     The condition of passing the examination prescribed in
     Appendix 2 by Accounts Clerks before they can be
     promoted to the rank of Stock Verifiers, may be relaxed,
     in special cases, under the sanction of the General
     Manager.
                                                                   D


    (6) No increments will be allowed to a Stock Verifier under
    he has passed the qualifying examination and failure at two
    consecutive examinations will entail reversion to his          E
    substantive post."(emphasis added).

     4. The Fifth Pay Commission in reference to Stock
Verifiers in para 83:243, has recommended as follows :

          "..... It may not be possible to recommend pay scale     F
    higher than that of Accounts Assistants (i.e. Rs.1600-2660)
    for Stock Verifiers. The selection grade for Stock Verifiers
    which was available prior to IV C.P.C. may be reviewed
    as a second grade for Stock Verifiers. This pay scale is
    proposed to be Rs1640-2900 in the present terms. This          G
    will motivate Stock Verifiers to continue in their line and
    not tempted to Accounts/Section Officers stream.

          In the course of recommendation, the Fifth Pay
    Commission took note of the demand made by the Stock
    Verifiers for higher pay scales than that of Accounts          11
    1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A       Assistants and an incentive on acquiring graduate
        diploma. The Commission also noted the fact that Stock
        Verifiers selected were given the benefit of pay fixation
        under F.R. 22 (C ) and two additional increments for
        passing the qualifying Appendix 4 IREM examination. After
B       the Pay Commission's recommendation, the pay scales
        of the erstwhile sub-heads (now Accounts Assistants) and
        Stock Verifiers became identical as Rs.1400-2600. It was
        also noted that despite the incentives of three advance
        increments for Stock Verifiers, Zonal Railways are facing
c       difficulties in filling up these posts and the Ministry had
        supported the demand for higher pay scales for Stock
        Verifiers."

      5. The Stock Verifiers were given incentives on passing
  the examination. The appellant passed the examination and
D was also given three advance increments.

       6. The respondent-Board in its communication dated
  25.07.1995 has categorically stated that three advance
  increments granted to the Stock Verifiers in the grade of
E Rs.1400-2600 for passing the examination may be treated as
  additional increment and cannot be treated as part of the basic
  pay.

        7. In this appeal, however, the impugned communication
  of 08.05.1996 came to be issued wherein it was ordered that
F additional increment will not be treated as part of basic pay and
  not to be reckoned for calculating the Dearness Allowance.
  Against the said communication, the appellant approached the
  Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application.
  The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in
G O.A.No.776/1996 has mentioned that the additional increment
  will be forming part of the basic pay of the individual and the
  appellant would be entitled to the consequential benefits. The
  respondent-Chairman, Railway Board preferred a Writ Petition
  before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court against
H
  K. BALARAMAN v. CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD 1047
       AND ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

the said judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the     .\
impugned judgment, the High Court has clearly observed that :

     " ..... that the increments cannot be treated as part of the
     basic pay, but only as a separate element which will not
     count for the purpose of calculating the D.A. etc."             B

    8. The stand of the respondent-Railway Board has been
consistent that the advance increment granted to the appellant ·
would not be counted for basic pay, DA and pensionary ·
benefits.
                                                                     c
     9. The Central Administrative Tribunal erroneously held that
three additional increments will form part of the basic pay. In
our considered view, the High Court was fully justified in setting
aside the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In this
view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the impugned             D
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court on merits. This
appeal, being devoid of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed,
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

B.B.B.                                       Appeal dismissed.