Holding

An officer promoted from a State Police Service to the IPS cannot have his pay reduced; his initial IPS pay must be fixed on the basis of his pay in the higher scale of the non‑IPS cadre, without applying the restrictive definition of “higher scale of pay”.

Summary

The respondent, a State Police Service officer, was promoted to the Indian Police Service (IPS) on 9 December 1995. His basic pay in the state cadre was Rs 4,650 plus special pay of Rs 100, but after promotion his pay was fixed at Rs 4,250 plus special pay of Rs 200, resulting in a reduction. After unsuccessful representations to the Accountant General, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which held that his pay could not be reduced and should be fixed at Rs 4,900 plus special pay of Rs 100, interpreting Schedule II of the IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954 without applying the restrictive definition of “higher scale of pay”. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s order, and the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal and High Court decisions, stating that an officer promoted from a State Police Service to the IPS must not suffer a pay reduction and his initial IPS pay should be based on his non‑IPS higher‑scale pay. The appeal was dismissed and the Union was directed to pay the respondent his arrears within six months.

Issues considered

Whether an officer promoted from a State Police Service to the IPS can have his pay reduced after induction into the IPS cadre.
How the term “higher scale of pay” in Clause (iii) of Schedule II of the IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954 should be interpreted for pay fixation of such officers.
Whether the restrictive definition of higher scale of pay is unreasonable or unconstitutional.

Subjects

service lawpay fixationpromotionIndian Police ServiceState Police Servicehigher scale of paypay anomalyCentral Administrative Tribunalpay reductioninterpretation of rules

Judgment

(2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 305

, UNION OF INDIA A
v.
T.M. SOMARAJAN & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal 'No. 9041 of 2003)
OCTOBER 21, 2009
B
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]

Service law ~Pay fixation - Appointment of officer of
State Police Service to /PS cadre - Reduction of pay in /PC
cadre vis-a-vis higher pay in State Police Service - Also c
juniors to the officer inducted into /PS cadre after the
induction of the officer, getting more pay - Removal of
anomaly sought - .Held: After entering into /PS cadre from
State Cadre Service, pay of such officer should not be
reduced - Order of tribunal as upheld by High Court that D
applicant entitled to get his initial pay fixed in /PS Cadre on
basis of the pay drawn by him in non-IPS cadre as confirmed
Superintendent of Police without applying restrictive definition
of expression higher scale, does not call for interference -
Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 1954, Schedule II section E
I.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
~ t 9041 of 2003.

From th~ Judgment & Order dated 6.9.2002 of the High F
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P. No. 22783 of 2002 (S).

WITH

SLP (C) Nos. 14700-14701 of 2004.
G
SLP (C) Nos. 8967 of 2007.

Mohan Jain, ASG, Dinesh Thakur, Rohini Mukh~rjee,

305 H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Subhash Kaushik, S.N. Terdal (for Sushma Suri) for the
Appellant.

Nishe Rajen Shanker (for T.T.K. Deepak & Co.) C.N.
Sreekumar, P.R. Nayak, G. Prakash, R. Sathish, V.K.
Sidharthan for the Respondents.
8
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. It it an admitted position that the
respondent No. 1 who was a member of the state police service
c was inducted into the Indian Police Service (IPS in short) w.e.f.
9.12.1995. At that time, his basic pay in the state cadre was
Rs. 4650 p.m. + special pay of Rs. 100. Very curiously, after
his entry into the IPS., his pay came to be refixed at Rs. 4250
+ special pay of Rs. 200 w.e.f. 1.12.19,96.

2. ·Respondent No. 1 made a representation dated
16.8. 1997 to ·the Accountant General (A&E), Kera la,
Thiruvananthapuram for the purpose of removal of the anomaly
consisting in the reduction of pay ·in the IPC cadre vis-a-vis
higher pay in the State Police Service. Instead-of removing that
anomaly, it was reiterated in a communication dated 2.9.1997
received from the Accountant General (A&E), Kerala that the
fixation of pay was made placing reliance on Clauses (iii) &
(iv) of Schedule II of IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred
to as "the IPS (Pay) Rules") and hence, there was no anomaly
at'all. Respondent No. 1 again sent a detailed representation
dated 6.10.1997 wherein he had elaborately explained the facts
and the relevant rules with regard to the pay fixation on his
appointment to the IPS cadre on promotion from the State
Police Service and t:1e provisions regarding the power of
relaxation conferred on the Union of India under Rule 6 of
Section Ill of Schedule II of the IPS (Pay) Rules. However, that
was also rejected by communication dated 4.1.1998. The
respondent No.1, therefore, challenged the same by way of
filing Original Application before the Central Administrative
UNION OF INDIA v. T.M. SOMARAJAN & OTHERS 307
[V.S. SIRPURKAR; J.]
Tribunal, Ernakulam Ben.ch and sought the following reliefs: A

-
f.
1. Caii for the records leading to Annexure A 1 & A2
and set aside the same.

2. Issue a direction to the respondents to fix the basic
pay of the applicant in the post of Superintendent B
of Police (IPS Cadre) at Rs. 4500/- + personal pay
of Rs. 400/- with effect from 9.12.1995 and
disburse the arrears of salary due to the applicant.
-.\
3. To declare that the applicant is entitled to have his c
pay fixed in the IPS cadre on the basis of the pay
drawn by him in the non-IPS cadre is a confirmed
Superintendent of Police applying the provisions
contained in Section 1 of Schedule II of the Indian
Police Service (Pay) Rules without giving effect to D
1 the unreasonable definition of higher scale of pay
contained in Clause Ill of Schedule II of the said
Rules.

4. To declare that the definition of Higher Scale of pay
contained in Clause Ill of Schedule II of the Indian E
Police Service (Pay) Rules is unreasonable and
unworkable and hence should not be enforced for
fixation of the pay of the applicant in the IPS cadre
with effect from 9.12.1995.
F
5. To declare that the definition of higher scale of pay
contained in Clause (Ill) of Schedule II of the Indian
Police Service (Pay) Rules is unconstitutional and
ab initio void.

6. To call for the records leading to Annexure A-16 and G
letter NO. 20015/1/2000-AIS (II) dated 27.3.2000 of
~ the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions referred to in
Annexure A-16 and set aside the same.
H
308 SUPREM_E COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 3. It also became apparent that few other officers similarly
placed with the respondent No. 1 were not found fit to be )\
inducted into the IPC cadre along with the respondent No. 1
and they were inducted into the IPS Cadre subsequently. It was
poinJed out by the respondent No. 1 that those officers were
B also junior to him. They were Shri Somasundra Menon,
Shamsudeen, Vijayan. Yet, inspite of the fact that all these
officers were junior and inducted into the IPS Cadre after the
induction of respondent No.1, their pay were fixed at higher level
than that of respondent No. 1.
F ""'
c 4. The Tribunal had held that the pay of respondent No. 1
could not be reduced from Rs. 4650 to Rs. 4250/- particularly
because of the Rules governing the pay scales of such State
Cadre Police Officers who were inducted into Jhe IPS Cadre.
For that purpose, the Tribunal took stock of IPS (Pay) Rules,
D , t954 and more particularly, Rule 4(5) thereof. The Tribunal also
took inio,account Section Ill of the Schedule-II which is referred
to in Rule 4(5). Oi1 reading of the same, the Tribunal correctly
came to the conclusion.th.:1! !lie pay of respondent No. 1 should
have been fixed at Rs. 4900/~ and -h~ was also entitled to
E special pay of Rs. 100/- Besides this, the Ti-ibunai also took
into account Section I of Schedule II of the IPS (Pay) Rules,
1954. In para 8 of its order, the Tribunal explained as to how
the respondent No.1 was entitled to higher pay. Ultimately, it
wrote a finding that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to get
F his initial pay in IPS Cadre fixed at Rs. 4900/- p.m. in
accordance with the proviso to Clause (2) Section I of Schedule
II. It also came to the conclusion that the Central Government
had the power to erase any anomaly caused in fixing the pay
of the concerned officer who had been inducted into the IPS
G Cadre. Ultimately, tl1e Tribunal also referred to the peculiar
anomaly caused in this case by the number of juniors of the
respondent No. 1 getting more pay than that of the respondent
~
No.1 who, though was inducted into the IPS Cadre earlier to
his juniors, faced an anomaly of earning salary lower to his
H juniors and even lesser than what he earned as a State Cadre
UNION OF INDIA v. T.M. SOMARAJAN & OTHERS 309
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
Police Officer. The Tribunal ultimately issued five direction which A
I I are as under:
-1..

____,,_.. 1. The impugned order A-1 dated 2.9.1997 is set-
(
aside.
'
.....
~
2. The impugned order A-2 dated 4.2.98 within B
practically reiterates the interpretation of the Rules
as given in A-2 and the conclusions drawn therein
-'."'" set-aside.
~
3. The impugned order A-16 dated 22.5.2000 of the c
-{ DOPT is set-aside. -

'I 4. We declare that the applicant is entitled to have his
initial pay fixed in the IPS Cadre on the basis of the
pay drawn by him in the non-IPS cadre as a
confirmed Superintendent of Police as on D
"1
9 .12 .1995 without applying the restrictive definition
\ of the expression higher scale occurring in
,. definition Clause (iii) of Schedule II of the Indian
Police Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. We further
declare that in the appiicant's case the context E
requires such interpretation of the meaning of
expression 'higher scale of pay' that should not
cause the anomalous situation of the. applicant
"+ deriving less pay and allowance than his juniors
----. some of whom were not even found fit to be F
promoted to the IPS along with and hence were
considered for promotion on subsequent date or
dates. We also declare that the anomaly in the
applicant's initial pay fixation in the IPS is to be
necessarily removed by applying the provisions of G
Clause (6) of Schedule II of the Indian Police
Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. The first respondent is
-1
directed to pass appropriate orders and ensure
removal of the anomaly in the applicant's initial pay
.... fixation in the IPS by applying the provisions of H

.........
)
~-
310 SUPREME COURT..REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Clause (6). and fixing the applicant's initial pay in
the IPS on the basis of his actual pay in the higher
scale of Super Indent of Police (Non-I PS) as on the
" .>

date of his promotion to the IPS.
.....

B
5. The above orders and directions shall be carried
out and the consequential benefits including
...
" arrears, if any, flowing therefore granted to the
applicant at an early date and in any case, within a .,,,
period of four months from the date of receipt of ,...
copy of this order."
c
5. The Union of India challenged the order of the Tribunal
by way of filing review application which was dismissed.
Ultimately, the matter reached before the High Court. The High
Court also dismissed the O.P. NO. 22783 of2002. Hence, the
D present app~~I. ~
~

6. Mr. Mohan Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General >
appearing for the Union of India tried to suggest that the fixation !
which was drawn as per the IPS (Pay) Rules was correctly done "
and, therefore, the or~ers passed by the Tribunal as well as of
E the High Court were. erroneous.

7. Mr. C.N. Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 1, however, supported the orders and pointed t""'
I
out that there would be no need to go into all the questions as
F the respondent No.1 has already retired from the service. He
pointed out that the Tribunal had correctly decided the issues.

8~ Mr. Jajn, learned Additional Solicitor General very fairly
conceded tha't there was an anomalous position inasmuch as
the juniors of the respondent No. 1 were drawing more pay than.
G
the :respondent No. 1 herein and, therefore, that part of the
Tribunal's order could not be faulted. Insofar as the interpretation ~
put forth by the Tribunal on the IPS (Pay) Rules was concerned,
learned Additional Solicitor General requested us to keep the
question open.
H

"'
)
UNION OF INDIA v. T.M. SOMARAJAN & OTHERS 311
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
9. We have considered the order of the Tribunal in detail. A
r' We are in agreement with the Tribunal's well considered order
...... as also of the High Court. In our opinion, after entering into the
IPS cadre from the State Cadre Service, the pay of such an
officer should not be reduced.

10. With these observations, we feel that there is no
B
infirmity in the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court. We
do not see any merit in this appeal which is, accordingly,
">-( dismissed.

11. It is reported before us that the respondent No. 1 has c
still not been able to get the fruits of the orders of the Tribunal
and High Court which were in his favour. We direct the Union
of India to work out and pay the benefits to be given to the
respondent No. 1 within six months from today. ·
~ D
SLP(C) Nos. 14700-14701/2004 & 8967 of 2007:

Delay condoned.

It is not disputed by the parties that the questions involved
in these petitions are identical with those involved in Civil E
Appeal No. 9041 of 2003.

In view of the orders passed in Civil Appeal No. 9041 of
~ + 2003, these Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
>
t
--1,.. N.J. Appeal and SLPs dismissed. F