MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]versusRAJ KUMAR ANAND
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 369
- Decided
- 14 March 2019
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
Pay fixation for the respondent must be effected under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, not under Rule 7.
Summary
The respondent, Raj Kumar Anand, a Trained Graduate Teacher, was granted Assured Career Progression (ACP) and placed in an upgraded pay scale effective 10 August 2006 by an order dated 25 April 2008. After the 6th Central Pay Commission’s rules (Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008) came into force on 29 August 2008, his pay was fixed under Rule 7, which the respondent contested, arguing that Rule 11 should apply because he had elected to switch to the revised pay structure from the date of the ACP upgradation. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application; the Delhi High Court, however, held that Rule 11 was the correct provision and allowed the writ petition. The Union of India appealed, contending that Rule 7 and its Note 2A governed the fixation. The Supreme Court examined the language of Rules 5, 7 and 11 and observed that the ACP upgradation was not a result of the 6th CPC schedule, so the option to switch to the revised pay structure triggered Rule 11. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, ordered pay revision under Rule 11, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- The appropriate rule under the Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 for fixing the pay of a government servant who received an Assured Career Progression upgrade before the Rules were notified and who elected to switch to the revised pay structure from the date of that upgrade.
- Whether the decision in Union of India v. K.V. Rama Raju & Ors., (2018) 2 SCALE 239 is applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008s. 11, s. 5, s. 7
Subjects
Judgment
1076 SUPREME[2019]
COURT REPORTS
2 S.C.R. 1076 [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
RAJ KUMAR ANAND
(Civil Appeal No. 3052 of 2019)
B MARCH 14, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Service law:
Fixation of pay – Grant of Assured Career Progression-ACP
C to the respondent-trained graduate teacher under the ACP Scheme
placing him in Trained Graduate Teacher pay scale vide order dated
25.4.2008 w.e.f. 10.8.2006 – Subsequently, on 29.8.2008, 6 th Central
Pay Commission enforced and Central Civil Service (Revised Pay)
Rules, 2008 framed and notified to revise the salary from 01.01.2006
– Revision of pay of respondent in accordance with the Rules of
D
2008, fixing pay u/r. 7 – Representation by respondent for fixation
of pay u/r. 11, however, pay not fixed u/r. 11 – Application before
the tribunal for correct fixation of pay u/r. 11 – Dismissal of
application as also review – However, in writ petition, the High
Court held that pay was wrongly fixed u/r. 7 and was required to be
E done u/r. 11 – On appeal, held: ACP was granted to the respondent
between 01.01.2006 and 29.8.2008 i.e. the date of notification of
2008 Rules – It was granted w.e.f. 10.8.2006 vide order dated
25.4.2008 – Thus, the benefit of upgraded pay scale was given to
the respondent in between the said dates– Once he has elected for
revised pay scale w.e.f. 10.8.2006, the date on which he was placed
F
in the upgraded pay scale, obviously, r. 7 cannot be said to be
applicable – Rule 11 would be applicable which deals with fixation
of the pay in the revised pay scale in case such an option is exercised
under the 2008 Rules – Thus, the High Court correct in applying r.
11 as Note 2A of the r. 7 not applicable - Central Civil Service
G (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008: rr. 5, 7, and 11.
Union of India & Ors. v. K.V. Rama Raju & Ors.
2018 (2) SCALE 239 – distinguished.
Case Law Reference
H 2018 (2) SCALE 239 distinguished Para 7
1076
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAJ KUMAR ANAND 1077
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3052 A
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 8119 of 2015.
WITH
B
Civil Appeal Nos.3053-3054 of 2019.
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Venkatesh, Atulesh Kumar, Kuldeep
Chauhan, Ms. Nishtha Kumar, Samarth Kashyap, Ms. Anindita Barman,
B. V. Balaram Das, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Ms. Punam Singh, Praveen
Swarup, Advs. for the Appellants. C
For Respondent: Caveator-in-person.
The following Order of the Court was passed
ORDER
1. Delay condoned. D
2. Leave granted.
3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The respondent was
appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Primary School Teacher) in East
Delhi Municipal Corporation now EDMC, Education department,
Shahdara (North) on 10.08.1994. On 04.01.2007, he was promoted as E
Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Social Science) in Government of
NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education and was posted as such on
17.3.2007. The respondent was granted ACP under the Assured Career
Progression Scheme placing him in Trained Graduate Teacher pay scale
vide order dated 25.4.2008 w.e.f. 10.8.2006. F
4. Later, on 29.8.2008, 6th Central Pay Commission (in short
‘CPC’) was enforced and the rules i.e., Central Civil Service (Revised
Pay) Rules, 2008 were framed and notified to revise the salary from
01.01.2006. On 18.11.2009 pay of respondent was revised in accordance
with the Rules of 2008. A clarification was issued by the Ministry of G
Finance, Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell in respect of
the manner of pay fixation in the revised pay structure on 29.01.2009. A
clarification was issued on 27.1.2009. Another clarification was issued
by Government of India Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training on 22.12.2010, with respect to the
manner of fixation of pay. As pay of the respondent was fixed under H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A Rule 7 and not under Rule 11 of the Rules 2008, he filed a representation
for fixation of pay in terms of proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules, 2008.
5. As pay was not correctly fixed, the respondent filed an original
application before Central Administrative Tribunal for correct fixation of
the pay under Rule 11 of the Rules, 2008. The Tribunal vide order dated
B 17.05.2012 in O.A. No.2475/2011 directed the concerned authorities to
pass a speaking order deciding on respondent’s representation. Thereafter
the respondent filed a comprehensive representation to the Director,
Directorate of Education and also submitted a copy of the same to the
Deputy Education Officer, MCD. The same was rejected on 24.7.2012.
The Assistant Director also passed an order dated 7.8.2012 declining
C the prayer made by the respondent. Again, the respondent filed the
original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The original
application and review both were dismissed.
6. Aggrieved thereby, a Writ Petition was filed by the respondent
before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed
D it and opined that it was Rule 11 which was attracted and not the provisions
of Rule 7 in view of the fact that the Respondent was granted the
upgraded pay scale of ACP w.e.f. 10.8.2006 and he has opted for revision
of pay from that date. Thus, fixation was wrongly done under Rule 7. It
was required to be done as per provisions contained under Rule 11 of
E Rules, 2008.
7. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG on behalf of Union of
India urged that Rule 7 is clearly attracted. Note 2A of Rule 7 clearly
provides the mode of fixation of salary in such an exigency. Thus, the
fixation has been rightly done. The Tribunal was right in dismissing the
F original application and the Division Bench of the High Court has erred
in law in applying Rule 11 of the Rules 2008. He has placed reliance on
the decision rendered by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. K.V.
Rama Raju & Ors.-2018 (2) SCALE 239.
8. The respondent who has appeared in person has supported the
G decision of the High Court and has contended that once he has opted for
revision of pay under the Rules of 2008 w.e.f. 10.8.2006, the date on
which upgraded pay scale was made available under ACP scheme before
Rules of 2008 were notified, the pay fixation was required to be done
under Rule 11 of Rules of 2008 and no case for interference is made out
with the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court.
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAJ KUMAR ANAND 1079
9. Rule 5, Rule 7 and Rule 11 of the Rules 2008 are required to be A
considered. Rule 5, 7 and 11 are extracted hereunder:
Rule 5. Drawal of pay in the revised pay structure- Save as
otherwise provided in these rules, a Government servant shall
draw pay in the revised pay structure applicable to the post to
which he is appointed. B
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 in that scale.
Provided further that in cases where a government servant has C
been placed in a higher pay scale between 1.1.2006 and the date
of notification of these Rules on account of promotion, upgradation
of pay scale etc., the government servant may elect to switch
over to the revised pay structure from the date of such promotion,
upgradation etc. D
Explanation 1- The option to retain the existing scale under the
provisos to this rule shall be admissible only in respect of one
existing scale.
Explanation 2- The aforesaid option shall not be admissible to any
person appointed to a post on or after the 1st day of January 2006, E
whether for the first time in government service or by transfer
from another post and he shall be allowed pay only in the revised
pay structure.
Explanation 3 – Where a government servant exercises the option
under the provisos to this Rule to retain the existing scale in respect F
of a post held by him in an officiating capacity on a regular basis
for the purpose of regulation of pay in that scale under fundamental
Rule 22, or any other rule or order applicable to that post, his
substantive pay shall be substantive pay which he would have
drawn had he retained the existing scale in respect of the permanent
G
post on which he holds a lien or would have held a lien had his lien
not been suspended or the pay of the officiating post which has
acquired the character of substantive pay in accordance with any
order for the time being in force, whichever is higher.
Rule 7. Fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure:
H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A (1) The initial pay of a government servant who elects, or is deemed
to have elected under sub-rule (s) of rule 6 to be governed by the
revised pay structure on and from the 1st day of January, 2006,
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
B
if it had not been suspended, and in respect of his pay in the
officiating post held by him, in the following manner, namely:-
(A) in the case of all employees:-
(i) the pay in the pay band/pay scale will be determined by
C multiplying the existing basic pay as on 1.1.2006 by a factor of
1.86 and rounding off the resultant figure to be next multiple of
10.
(ii) if the minimum of the revised pay band/pay scale is more than
the amount arrived at as per (I) above, the pay shall be fixed at
D the minimum of the revised pay band/pay scale; Provided further
that:-
where, in the fixation of pay, the pay of Government servants
drawing pay at two or more consecutive stages in an existing
scale gets bunched, that is to say, gets fixed in the revised pay
E structure at the same stage in the pay band, then for every two
stages so bunched, benefit of one increment shall be given so as
to avoid bunching of more than two stages in the revised running
pay bands. For this purpose, the increment will be calculated on
the pay in the pay band. Grade pay would not be taken into
account for the purpose of granting increments to alleviate
F bunching.
In the case of pay scales in higher administrative grade (HAG) in
the pay band, PB-4 benefits of increments due to bunching shall
be given taking into account all the stages in different pay scales
in this grade. In the case of HAG + scale benefit of one increment
G for every two stages in the pre-revised scale will be granted in
the revised pay scale. In by stepping up of the pay as above, the
pay of a government servant gets fixed at a stage in the revised
pay band/pay scale (where applicable) which is higher than the
stage in the revised pay band at which the pay of a government
servant who was drawing pay at the next higher stage or stages
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAJ KUMAR ANAND 1081
in the same existing scale is fixed, the pay of the latter shall also A
be stepped up only to the extent by which it falls short of that of
the former.
(iii) the pay in the pay band will be determined in the above manner.
In addition to the pay in the pay band, grade pay corresponding to
the existing scale will be payable. B
……………
Note 2A- Where a post has been upgraded as a result of the
recommendations of the Sixth CPC as indicated in part B or Part
C of the First Schedule to these Rules, the fixation of pay in the
applicable pay band will be done in the manner prescribed in C
accordance with Clause (A) (i) and (ii) of Rule 7 by multiplying
the existing basic pay as on 1.1.2006 by a factor of 1.86 and
rounding the resultant figure to the next multiple of ten. The grade
pay corresponding to the upgraded scale as indicated in Column 6
of Part B or C will be payable in addition. Illustration 4A in this D
regard is in the Explanatory Memorandum to these rules.
Rule 11. Fixation of pay in the revised pay structure subsequent
to the 1st day of January, 2006 - Where a government servant
continues to draw his pay in the existing scale and is brought over
to the revised pay structure from a date later than the 1st day of E
January 2006, his pay from the later date in the revised pay
structure shall be fixed in the following manner:-
(i) Pay in the pay band will be fixed by adding the basic pay
applicable on the later date, the dearness pay applicable on that
date and the pre-revised dearness allowance based on rates F
applicable as on 1.1.2006. This figure will be rounded off to the
next multiple of 10 and will then become the pay in the applicable
pay band. In addition to this, the grade pay corresponding to the
pre-revised pay scale will be payable…....”
(emphasis supplied)
G
10. It is apparent from the first proviso to Rule 5 of Rules of 2008,
that option was given to the government servant to continue to draw the
pay scale until the date on which his next or any subsequent increment
in the existing scale or until he vacates his post or ceases to draw pay in
that pay scale.
H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A 11. Second proviso to Rule 5 which is attracted also made it clear
that where the government servant has been placed in a higher pay
scale between 1.1.2006 and the date of notification of these Rules on
account of promotion, upgradation of pay scale etc., the government
servant may elect to switch over to the revised pay structure from the
date of such promotion, upgradation etc.
B
12. It is not in dispute that the ACP was granted to the respondent
between 01.01.2006 and 29.8.2008 i.e. the date of notification of Rules
2008. It was granted w.e.f. 10.8.2006 vide order dated 25.4.2008. Thus,
the benefit of upgraded pay scale was given to the respondent in between
the aforesaid dates.
C
13. Once he has elected for revised pay scale w.e.f. 10.8.2006,
the date on which he was placed in the upgraded pay scale, obviously,
Rule 7 cannot be said to be applicable. It is Rule 11 which is applicable.
14. Rule 7 deals with the fixation of initial pay in the revised pay
D structure as per the 6th Central Pay Commission. Note 2A to Rule 7
relied upon by the appellants makes it vivid that where a pay scale has
been upgraded on the recommendation of Central Pay Commission as
indicated in para B and C of the first Schedule of the Rules of 2008, the
fixation has to be made under Rule 7. However, it was not the case of
upgradation of the post as a result of the recommendation of the 6th Pay
E Commission and Schedule of Rules of 2008, but it was under ACP scheme
which is a different scheme than the one as provided in the first schedule
to the Rules 2008. The respondent has opted for revision of pay scale
from the date of upgradation in the ACP scale w.e.f. 10.08.2006.
Obviously, his pay has to be fixed under Rule 11 which deals with fixation
F of the pay in the revised pay scale in case such an option is exercised
under the Rules of 2008. The Division Bench of the High Court was
absolutely correct in applying Rule 11 as Note 2A of Rule 7 is not
applicable in the case.
15. Coming to the decision rendered by this Court in K.V. Rama
G Raju & Ors. (supra), it does not appear from the facts that it was a
case of exercising option from the date of upgradation under ACP that
came for consideration before this Court. It is not clear whether it was
a case of upgradation as a result of the recommendation of the 6th Pay
Commission or independent thereto. In both the cases consequences
are different. In the earlier exigency Rule 7 is attracted and in the later
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAJ KUMAR ANAND 1083
one Rule 11 of Rules of 2008 is attracted for fixation of pay. Thus, the A
decision cannot be an authority on the aforesaid issue which has not
been decided. Apart from that, it was not the case of appellants that
upgraded pay scale has been brought about by 6th Pay Commission as
per provisions contained in Schedule of the Rules 2008 as provided in
Note 2A of Rule 7. Thus, the decision in K.V. Rama Raju & Ors. (supra)
B
is wholly distinguishable and cannot be applied to such cases where
upgradation has been made otherwise than as per Schedule to Rules of
2008 framed as per recommendations of 6th Pay Commission and option
is exercised in the aforesaid manner.
16. Resultantly, we have no hesitation to hold that the appeal is
bereft of merit. Pay fixation has to be done under Rule 11 and not Rule C
7 as discussed. Let pay revision be worked out and arrears, if any, be
paid within a period of 3 months from today.
17. The appeals deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed.
18. Parties to bear their own costs. D
Nidhi Jain Appeals dismissed.
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.