Supreme Court Upholds Cut-off Date for Revised Pay Scale: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Vijay Shankar Dubey (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 March 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 258
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can a government employee demand a revised pay scale from a retrospective date, even if the revision was based on a new analogy adopted by the government? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Vijay Shankar Dubey. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in granting the respondent, a retired Joint Director of Prosecution, the benefit of a revised pay scale from 01.01.1996, instead of the cut-off date of 01.04.2001 set by the government. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The respondent, Vijay Shankar Dubey, was initially appointed as Assistant Public Officer on 11.02.1963 and was promoted to Joint Director, Prosecution, a Class I post, on 12.06.1964. He retired on 31.01.1997 while in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5000 as per the Fourth Pay Commission Report. Following the Fifth Pay Commission Report, the pay scale for his post was revised to Rs.12000-16500, and his pension was revised accordingly.

Subsequently, a committee was formed to address anomalies in pay scales post the Fifth Pay Commission’s recommendations. This committee recommended upgrading the pay scales of the Prosecution cadre, aligning them with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) organization, with effect from 01.04.2001. For the post of Joint Director, Prosecution, the pay scale was revised to Rs.14300-18500. The government accepted this recommendation on 02.02.2007 and implemented the revised pay scales from 01.04.2001.

The respondent, having retired on 31.01.1997, requested that the revised pay scale be applied to him with effect from 01.01.1996. His request was denied, as the revised pay scales were implemented from 01.04.2001. Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition in the High Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent filed Writ-A No.18687 of 2013 in the High Court, seeking the benefit of the amended pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996. The High Court allowed the writ petition, relying on two earlier judgments: State of U.P. and others vs. Anand Kumar Mishra and others and State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Ghanshayam Singh and another. The High Court held that the respondent’s case was fully covered by the judgment in State of U.P. and others vs. Anand Kumar Mishra and others, and thus, he was entitled to the benefit of the amended pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996.

The State of Uttar Pradesh and others then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Fifth Pay Commission Report and subsequent government orders related to pay scale revisions. The Fifth Pay Commission revised the pay scale for the post of Joint Director, Prosecution from Rs.3700-5000 to Rs.12000-16500, effective from 01.01.1996.

A committee was constituted to address anomalies arising from the Fifth Pay Commission’s recommendations. This committee recommended that the pay scales of the Prosecution cadre be upgraded based on the analogy of the posts in the CBI, with effect from 01.04.2001.

The Government Order dated 02.02.2007 accepted the committee’s recommendations and revised the pay scale of Joint Director, Prosecution, to Rs.14300-18500, with effect from 01.04.2001. The relevant portion of the Government Order dated 02.02.2007 states:

“His Excellency the Hon’ble Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to sanction a revised Higher Pay Scale, for the various posts, in the Prosecution Department as referred in Column -2 of the chart annexed with this Government Order, in place of the General Revised Pay Scales applicable with effect from 01.01.1996, as shown in column -3 of the said chart, to be implemented with effect from 01.04.2001.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (State of Uttar Pradesh):

• The State Government decided to amend the pay scales of various posts in the Prosecution Department with effect from 01.04.2001, based on the recommendations of a committee.
• The date 01.04.2001 was fixed for amending the pay scales following the analogy of the CBI organization. This analogy was adopted for the first time for the Prosecution Branch.
• The Government Order dated 02.02.2007 does not indicate any error in the pay scale granted to the respondent based on the Fifth Pay Commission Report.
• There was a rational basis for fixing the date as 01.04.2001, and it cannot be validly challenged.
• The High Court erred in relying on the judgments in State of U.P. and others vs. Anand Kumar Mishra and others and Ghanshayam Singh’s case, as those cases pertained to different departments and different posts.
• A Division Bench of the High Court in Sudhir Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others correctly held that the benefit of the Government Order dated 02.02.2007 could not be extended to Joint Directors (Prosecution) who retired before 01.04.2001.

Arguments by the Respondent (Vijay Shankar Dubey):

• The two Division Bench judgments of the High Court relied on in the impugned judgment were fully applicable to his case.
• No appeal was filed against the judgment in Ghanshayam Singh’s case, and the SLP filed against the judgment in Anand Kumar Mishra’s case was dismissed.
• When the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations were implemented from 01.01.1996, his pay scale was not properly fixed.
• The committee for anomalies recommended the revision and amendment of pay scale to Rs.14300 to 18500, which should have been implemented with effect from 01.01.1996.

[TABLE] of Submissions by Parties

Innovativeness of the argument: The State’s argument that the cut-off date was rationally based on the adoption of the CBI pay scale analogy for the first time was a novel point.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue that the Court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the amended pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996, instead of the cut-off date of 01.04.2001 fixed by the government.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Purshottam Lal and others vs. Union of India and another, (1973) 1 SCC 651, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the respondent, but the Supreme Court distinguished it, stating that it had no bearing on the facts of the present case.

Legal Provisions:

• Fifth Pay Commission Report: The report recommended revised pay scales, which were implemented from 01.01.1996.
• Government Order dated 02.02.2007: This order implemented the revised pay scales for the Prosecution Department based on the analogy of the CBI organization, with effect from 01.04.2001.

[TABLE] of Authorities Considered

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished Purshottam Lal and others vs. Union of India and another [ (1973) 1 SCC 651 ] stating it had no bearing on the facts of the present case.
• The Court acknowledged the Fifth Pay Commission Report and its implementation from 01.01.1996, but emphasized that the subsequent revision based on the CBI analogy was a separate decision.
• The Court upheld the validity of the Government Order dated 02.02.2007, which implemented the revised pay scales from 01.04.2001.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Rational Basis for Cut-off Date: The Court emphasized that the cut-off date of 01.04.2001 was not arbitrary but was based on the adoption of the CBI pay scale analogy for the first time.
• No Error in Initial Pay Scale: The Court found no evidence that the initial pay scale granted to the respondent based on the Fifth Pay Commission Report was erroneous.
• Distinction from Previous Cases: The Court distinguished the present case from the cases relied upon by the High Court, noting that those cases pertained to different departments and posts.
• State’s Power to Fix Cut-off Dates: The Court recognized the State’s power to fix a rational cut-off date when extending a new benefit to a category of employees.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal principles and the specific facts of the case, with a stronger emphasis on the legal justifications for the cut-off date.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the government’s decision to fix the cut-off date, the absence of any error in the initial pay scale, the inapplicability of previous judgments, and the state’s power to fix cut-off dates, ultimately concluding that the cut-off date of 01.04.2001 was valid.

The Supreme Court considered the argument that the revised pay scale should be implemented from 01.01.1996, but rejected it. The Court reasoned that the revision was based on a new analogy with the CBI and was not a correction of an error in the initial pay scale. The Court emphasized the State’s power to fix a rational cut-off date when extending a new benefit.

The Court stated, “When the amendment in the pay scale is being affected, we do not find any arbitrariness in fixing uniform date, 01.04.2001.” The Court also noted that the benefit of the upgraded pay scale was accepted for the first time based on the CBI analogy, and therefore, the State was not obligated to extend the benefit from 01.01.1996.

The Court further observed, “When a benefit for the first time is extended to a category of employees , the State can always fix a rational cut off date and it was not obligatory for the State to extend the benefit of analogy of the CBI organisation of the Center with effect from 01.01.1996…”

The Court concluded, “The respondent being not covered by the Government order dated 02.02.2007 was rightly informed that he was not entitled for the benefit of amendment in the pay scale he having already retired on 31.01.1997.”

There was no minority opinion. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench.

Key Takeaways

• Government has the power to fix a rational cut-off date when extending a new benefit to a category of employees.
• Revised pay scales based on new analogies can be implemented from a specific date, and employees cannot claim retrospective benefits if they retired before that date.
• High Courts should not rely on judgments from different departments and posts while deciding service matters.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court other than setting aside the judgment of the High Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a benefit is extended to a category of employees for the first time, the State can fix a rational cut-off date for its implementation. This judgment clarifies that employees cannot claim retrospective benefits based on subsequent pay scale revisions if they retired before the cut-off date. This case reinforces the principle that the government has the authority to determine the effective date for pay scale revisions, especially when based on new analogies. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it reinforces the existing position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, setting aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The Court held that the cut-off date of 01.04.2001 for the implementation of the revised pay scale for the post of Joint Director, Prosecution, was valid. The Court emphasized that the revision was based on a new analogy with the CBI and was not a correction of an error in the initial pay scale. The judgment reinforces the State’s power to fix rational cut-off dates when extending new benefits to employees.