NEW
DELHI,
OCT 10, 2006 : RESPONDENT (
Mr Tarsem Lal, ) filed the Original Application in CAT claiming that he was
entitled to pay and allowance from the date on which proforma promotion was
given and not from the date of actual promotion. UOI relied on circular dated
15/17 September, 1964 to contend that his claim was untenable.
Appellants (UOI) denied him the arrears with effect from the date of proforma
promotion on the ground that he has not worked on the promotional post during
the said period and as such he was not entitled for the revised pay from that
date. Reliance was placed on paragraph 228 of Indian Railway Establishment
Manual (in short 'IREM') Volume I dealing with employees who have lost promotion
on account of administrative error. It inter alia provides that in such cases
the pay should be fixed on proforma basis and the enhanced pay was to be allowed
from the date of actual promotion and no arrears on this account was to be
paid for the past period as he did not actually perform duties and responsibilities
of the higher post.
The respondents challenged this before the CAT and got a favourable order
in which the decision of the SC in Harbans Singh vs. State of Punjab and others
(1995 Supp. (3) SCC 471) was followed. The High Court also dismissed the writ
petition of the appellants relying on the judgment in Harbans Singh's case
(supra).
This decision of the HC was challenged before the SC on the ground that the
view of the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court does not reflect the correct
position in law. Para 228 of IREM was pressed into service to contend that
the Tribunal or the High Court in the instant case did not express any view
on the legality of the provision. The CAT and the High Court merely relied
on Harbans Singh's case (supra) without indicating as to how the factual scenario
of that case has any application to the facts of the present case.
After careful consideration of the issue, the SC held that the case has been
well covered in earlier decisions of SC in Virender Kumar, General Manager,
Northern Railways, New Delhi vs. Avinash Chandra Chadha and others and Union
of India and Ors. vs. P.O. Abraham and Ors. decided on 13.8.1997 wherein it
was decided on principle of 'no work no pay' that the respondents will not
be entitled to the higher salary as they have not actually worked in that post
and accordingly set aside the orders of the HC.
(See
'2006-HRIOL-26-SC-SERVICE'
Laws 4 U for details of the Judgement)
