Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules| Rule Of Stepping Up Shall Apply Only If Conditions Specified Are Fulfilled: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court observed that the Rule of stepping up shall apply only if the conditions specified are fulfilled.
The Court observed thus in a batch of civil appeals challenging the common order of the Gujarat High Court’s Division Bench by which it set aside the order of the Single Judge directing to remove the anomaly in the pay of persons qua their juniors by stepping up their pay.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held, “A bare reading of the above provision makes it clear that a strict compliance of the said rule is necessary. The Rule of stepping up shall apply only if the conditions specified therein are fulfilled. Specifically, condition no. (v) of Rule 21 stipulates that the anomaly must be the direct result of the application of this rule. It further states by way of an example that, if even in the lower post the junior Government employee draws from time to time the higher rate of pay than the senior by way of fixation of the pay under the normal rule or by grant of advance increments for any reasons, the same shall not be applicable to step up the pay of the senior Government employee.”
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for the appellants while Advocate Kanu Agarwal and AOR Swati Ghildiyal appeared for the respondents.
Factual Background -
The case was related to the issue whether or not the principle of stepping up of pay of an employee on the basis of the pay of his junior, is applicable where the appellants were put on a lesser pay scale than the Assistant Professors who were appointed before them as ad hoc lecturers and subsequently regularized. The genesis of controversy goes back to the period of 1984-95 when 111 persons were engaged as Lecturers on ad hoc basis in various Government Colleges. The University Grants Commission (UGC) had framed the Regulations of 1998, inter alia, providing for minimum length of service of four years for lecturers (Assistant Professor) with PhD and M. Phil and of six years for others to be eligible to move to Senior Scale (i.e., 10000-325-15200) and on completion of another five years of service, for being eligible to move to Selection Grade (i.e., 12000-420-18300).
The said regulations also provided for counting of services during ad hoc period for grant of Senior Scale and Selection Grade Pay. In view of this, the Education Department issued a Government Resolution for considering previous services rendered by the ad hoc lecturers for their placement in Senior Scale/Selection Grade. In 2001, some other ad hoc lecturers approached the High Court for regularization of their services but their application was dismissed. In the same year, the appellants were directly selected and appointed as Assistant Professors by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC).
The Single Judge of the High Court in 2017, held that Rule 21 is applicable in the case based on the finding that the grant of Senior Scale and Selection Grade under the Career Advancement Scheme can be said to be promotion and therefore, when at the time of grant of Senior Scale and Selection Grade under the Career Advancement Scheme, there is anomaly in the pay scale between the Senior and Junior. It, accordingly, granted the benefit of stepping up, holding that the seniors are entitled to pay at par with their junior who were selected and appointed subsequent to them. Being aggrieved, the respondents approached the Division Bench and it allowed their appeals. Resultantly, the appellants were before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “It is to be noted that in the present case, the anomaly in pay is not a direct result of Rule 21. Rather, the alleged anomaly arose because the 85 Assistant Professors [1984-95 Group] have been granted the benefit of Senior Scale/Selection Grade Pay by taking into account the ad hoc services that they have rendered in the past. Therefore, Rule 21 becomes inapplicable in the present case.”
Moreover, the Court said that if the appeals are allowed, then it would amount to giving benefit to the appellants and others of the earlier years, during which admittedly they were not even born in the cadre and not even serving and this would go against the principle of equity. It added that such a benefit cannot be claimed for the years of service that they have not actually rendered.
“The case of R. Swaminathan (supra) is a matter with very similar factual matrix wherein certain employees claiming seniority were claiming step up if their juniors are getting more pay on account of their ad hoc services being counted. Certain junior employees had officiated on a promotional post on an ad hoc basis due to administrative exigencies., due to which their pay on their regular promotion was fixed higher than their senior”, it also noted.
The Court, therefore, held that Rule 21 of the 2002 Pay Rules is inapplicable in this case and no relief can be granted to the appellants.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the appeals.
Cause Title- Maheshkumar Chandulal Patel & Anr. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 608)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, AORs Charu Mathur, Nachiketa Joshi, Advocates Sucheta Joshi, Himadri Haksar, Narayan Dev Parashar, and Karishma Rajput.
Respondents: Advocate Kanu Agarwal, AOR Swati Ghildiyal, Advocates Devyani Bhatt, Madhav S, and AOR Deepanwita Priyanka.