P. Ravindranath, Hyd vs Govt. Of A.P., Fp Dept., Hyd 3 Others

The petitioner before this Court, who is a retired employee, has filed this writ petition claiming stepping up of pay at par with his juniors.

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that earlier also the petitioner came up before this Court by filing writ petition i.e., W.P.No.1078 of 2007 and a Division Bench has dismissed the writ petition.

The order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.1078 of 2007 is reproduced as under:-

“The petitioner was promoted as Sheristadar by an order dated 12.10.1997 and joined as such on 12.01.1998. His services in the said category were regularized by 11.01.1998. On joining the post of Sheristadar in January 1998 the petitioner's basic pay was fixed at Rs. 4,270/-. After his redesignation as Administrative Officer pursuant to the constitution of the service under the revised AP Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003 and redesignation of the post of Sheristadar as Administrative Officer, the petitioner's pay is pleaded to have been refixed and he is drawing pay of Rs.15.405/- (para-2 of the writ petition).

Though the averments in the writ petition are meandering and vague, the specific grievance of the petitioner appears to be that persons appointed as Administrative Officers 5 to 6 years after he was so appointed, are drawing higher salary than him. The petitioner cites instances of Sarvasri B.Vishavamber, P. Ibrahim, P.Narasimharaju, A.Paul Augusteen, R.Satyanarayana, M. Satyanarayana, K.V.K.Manohar, L.Babu Rao, M.V.subba Rao, G.V.Ramana, to illustrate his grievance of drawing lesser pay than his juniors in the category of Administrative Officers.

Two counter affidavits in succession have been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. The counter affidavit dated 3.4.2007 states that the post of Administrative Officer is part of the District cadre and therefore the petitioner cannot gainfully compare his pay with that of Administrative Officers of other districts. In this counter affidavit it is also pleaded that Administrative Officers of other districts could have different pay packets on account of accretion thereto on the basis of individual circumstances such as acquisition of superior qualifications, length of service in the feeder categories and the scale of pay drawn in the feeder categories and so on. With regard to officers whose instances were cited in the writ petition, the appendix to this counter affidavit points out that each of these officers had some special pay packet attached either towards F.P. incentives or for higher qualifications.

In an additional counter affidavit dated 23.10.2007 the 2nd respondent responding to some additional material marshaled by the petitioner, states that there is no common seniority of Administrative Officers maintained for the purpose of fixation of pay, since each district is a unit. With regard to the instance of Mr. M.Subrahmanyam, Administrative Officer, Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court for Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case Cum Addl. Family Court, Hyderabad referred to by the petitioner, this counter avers that Mr. Subrahmanyam originally belonged to the unit of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Though the petitioner is senior to Mr. Subrahmanyam in the categories of Head Clerk and Administrative Officer, the pay of Mr. M. Subrahmanyam in all categories was higher than the petitioner. Mr. Subrahmanyam was appointed as Copyist on 25.11.1964 and was drawing a pay of Rs.320 + Rs.25 Special Pay, while the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 1.8.1976 with his pay fixed at Rs.250/- without special pay. Mr. Subrahmanyam also was a law graduate and was thus sanctioned two advance increments. Therefore, Mr.Subrahmanyam, though junior to the petitioner as Administrative Officer, was drawing a pay of Rs.11,600/- as on 30.6.2003, while the petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs.9,600/-. It is additionally pleaded that from a verification of the petitioner's service register it is seen that the petitioner was notionally promoted as UDC pursuant to the direction in W.P No. 15313/87 and as UD Head Clerk w.e.f., 1.10.1985 and without entitlement to claim for additional salary as such and therefore too a discrepancy of pay between the petitioner and others would have occurred.

Neither in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition nor in the reply affidavit has the petitioner pleaded any fact which clearly establishes that the petitioner was identically circumstanced as the other Administrative Officers or that the petitioner and the other Administrative Officers of other Districts belong to a common administrative stream thereby inviting application of the equality injunctions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. If the Administrative Officers working in other administrative units, though junior to the petitioner, were drawing higher pay packet on account of certain personal circumstances such as additional qualifications, special pay on account of F.P. incentives or the like, that would not be a factor for the petitioner to seek parity of pay.

Ms. K.N.Vijayalakshmi, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was being paid lower pay packet than the pay as per the revisions in pay scales from time to time pursuant to Pay Revision Commissions. Though this plea is orally advanced there is no pleading to this effect and therefore this court declines to take cognizance of this averment.

As the petitioner has failed to make out a factual case of discrimination or unequal treatment, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.”

Thereafter, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.10459 of 2008 was preferred and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically stated as under:-

“Heard both sides.

We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the matter before the High Court. Without prejudice to such right, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.”

On account of liberty granted to the petitioner, he has preferred an appeal before the High Court again and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by an order dated 11.08.2010.

This Court has again gone through the entire record of the case and the facts reveal that the juniors were receiving more emoluments, as they have obtained Law Degree and they were granted family planning incentive, which is something personal to an individual, and it is not a case of some anomaly resulting on account of wrong pay fixation or otherwise. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to set aside the impugned order passed in the appeal by the High Court dated 11.08.2010.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. P. Jagdish (1997) 3 SCC 176.

In the considered opinion of this Court, once there is a detailed and exhaustive order passed by the earlier Division Bench on the subject and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the finding arrived at by the Division Bench, the question of reviewing the order passed by the earlier Division Bench in the aforesaid circumstances does not arise.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.