THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ADMINSITRATION) BANGALOREversusV.K. GURURAJ AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 113
- Decided
- 22 January 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The special allowance of Rs.35 per month is a personal entitlement only for Upper Division Clerks who actually perform the designated special duties; UDCs who do not perform such duties are not entitled to the allowance.
Summary
The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Administration) appealed against a Central Administrative Tribunal order that directed payment of a special allowance of Rs.35 per month to all Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) in non‑secretariat administrative offices. The government had earmarked 10% of UDC posts for special duties involving complex work and provided the allowance as compensation for those duties. The respondents, who were UDCs but did not perform the special duties, claimed the allowance. The Court examined whether the allowance is a personal right contingent on the performance of the special duties and whether the Tribunal erred in extending it to all UDCs. It held that the special pay is personal and only those actually discharging the special duties are entitled to it, and that the Tribunal’s order was incorrect. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the directive for payment to all respondents was set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the special grant of Rs.35 per month to Upper Division Clerks is a personal entitlement dependent on the performance of designated special duties.
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in directing payment of the special allowance to all UDCs irrespective of actual discharge of those duties.
- Whether the failure to appeal a similar order in one case binds other similar cases.
Subjects
Judgment
(
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX A
.. (ADMINISTRATION), BANGALORE
v.
V.K. GURURAJ AND ORS.
JANUARY 22, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Service Law :
Civil Services-Special pay to UDCs in non-secretariat administrative C
offices-JO% of posts earmarked for giant of special p~Those UDCs
directed to handle cases of complex nature involving deep study and com-
petence-<Jrant of special pay to compensate discharge of such duties-{]DCs
not actually discharging such special duties-Claiming special pay-Central
Administrative Tribunal directing payment-Held; UDCs who do not perfonn
the special duties, though seniors, not entitled to get the special pay. D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2537-43
of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.92 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Bangalore in 0.A. Nos. 190-94, 204, 217 of 1991. E
K. Lahiri, T.V. Ratnam and S.N. Terdol for the Appellant.
)
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Office report shows that notice was issued to the respondents on F
25.8.1993. Though it was served on respondent No. 2 on 14.9.1993 and on
respondent No. 7 on 7.9.1993, they do not appear either in person or
through counsel. Neither unserved envelops nor ND cards have been
received in respect of respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6. Under these circumstan-
ces, notice to them must be deemed to have been served. G
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel for the appellant. The Government in
O.M. No. F7(52) E IIIn8, dated May 5, 1979 have stated that special grant
of pay of Rs. 35 per month to the Upper Division Clerks in the non- H
841
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.
A secretariat administrative offices was provided. Out of the UDCs carrying
the scale of Rs. 330-560, 10% of the posts were earmarked with special
grant of pay of Rs. 35 in the secretariat and other places and they were
direc.ted to handle cases of complex nature involving deep study and
competence. For dealing with such cases certain officers have been
promoted to that 10% posts specified among the UDCs in the secretariat
B
as well as non-secretariat administrative officers. They were being paid @
Rs. 35 per month as compensation for discharge of special duties. The
respondents were not actually discharging those duties but being UDCs
they claimed special pay of Rs. 35. The Tribunal in the impugned order
following its earlier decision dated 9.10.1991 made in 0.A. 394/90 allowed
C the petition and directed payment. We have directed the counsel to find
out whether any appeal has been filed against the said order. It would
appear that no appeal has been filed against the said order. However, it
being a question of law and since the matter is of perennial problem
applicable to several places, we are of the considered view that the failure
D to file an appeal in one case does not have the effect of following in all
other cases. It is seen that payment of Rs. 35 per month to UDCs discharg-
ing special duties of onerous nature, is personal pay so long as they
discharge the same. Therefore, other UDCs who do not perform the
special duties, though seniors, do not ipso facto get the same pay on the
posity of equal pay due to juniors getting higher pay. Under these cir-
E cumstances we are of the view that the Tribunal was wholly incorrect in
directing payment to all the persons who did not discharge such duties
assigned to the 10% special posts of UDCs carrying special pay of Rs. 35
per month.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
F
G.N. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.