AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leave granted.
The first question raised on behalf of the appellant in all these appeals is whether the special pay of ` 35/- should be considered as a part of the pay of the employees concerned for adjustment of their pay in the pay scale of the post of the Senior Accountant when they are appointed to that post. The letter dated 3rd January, 1981 from the Director General of Posts and Telegraph bearing No. 6-7-79-PAP read with Circular No. 8. 7. (52) S. 123/78 of 5th May, 1979 makes it clear that the special pay of ` 35/- was granted to 10 per cent of the posts of Junior Accountants for discharging more complex and important nature of work. This means that 10 per cent of the Junior Accountants posts were entitled to this higher or special pay and the appointees to the posts carried the same till they were appointed to the next promotional post of the Senior Accountant. The special pay was not granted to them in lieu of promotion for having been stagnated in the lower post or grade as contended on behalf of the appellant-Union of India. It was a kind of an intermediate level of post/grade. Hence when the employees carrying the special pay were thereafter promoted to the next higher post of the Senior Accountant, their salary had to be fixed according to F.R. 220. The view taken by the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to be erroneous.
As regards the contention that even those Junior Accountants who were not getting special pay of ` 35/- per month have been given the benefit of the said rule, when they were promoted to the post of the Senior Accountant, in answer to our query whether the persons concerned were not overlooked while granting special pay to their juniors. Mr. Mahajan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Union of India sought time to get the information. We declined the request because, it was not disputed before the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal, according to us, rightly proceeded on the footing that the persons concerned were overlooked. It is not disputed that the 10 per cent of the posts earmarked for special pay had to be filled in on the basis of the rule of seniority-cum-merit and there is nothing on record to show that the individuals concerned were overlooked on account of their lack of merit. In other words, the injustice done to them while giving the said pay to their juniors, has been rectified by the Tribunal by the impugned order.
Mr. Mahajan then contended that the qualification-pay of ` 15/- could not have been taken into consideration for fixation of the pay in the promotional pay scale of Senior Accountant. The argument is misplaced because letter No. 32-1/81-Pace/1036/0/072 dated 7th September, 1983, which is Annexure ''E'' to the Petition and issued by the Postal Accounts Wing makes it clear that the qualification pay will be treated as part of the pay for the purpose of fixation of pay when promoted to the higher post. In the circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals and they are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
I. A. No. 4 in SLP (C) No._____192 is disposed of accordingly.
C. A. No. 1886/1994
In view of the order passed in the above appeals, the impugned decision of the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed with costs.