Govt. Employee Holding Pensionable Civil Post With Benefits Of 7th Pay Commission Is Also Entitled To Benefits Of 5th & 6th Pay Commission: J&K&L HC
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a Government employee holding a pensionable civil post with the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations is also entitled to the benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Commission recommendations.
The Court allowed the petition filed by a Vehicle Inspector (employee/petitioner) with the J&K State Road Transport Corporation (corporation/respondent), who was denied higher pay grades. The Bench declared an earlier rejection order from the corporation as inconsequential/ineffective and directed that fresh orders be issued to place the employee in the relevant revised pay scales.
A Single Bench of Justice M.A. Chowdhary observed, “Viewed thus, in view of treating the petitioner by the respondents as a Govt. employee holding pensionable civil post and also releasing him the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Commission recommendations as implemented vide aforesaid SROs.”
Advocate Abhishek Wazir appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate R. Koul represented the respondents.
The grievance of the employee was that the benefits of 5th pay commission and 6th pay commission were not extended to the him although the benefits of 7th pay commission had been extended to him.
Despite having served as a Vehicle Inspector since 1992, the employee subitted that his pay grade was not revised as provided under the government orders. It was further submitted that despite promotions, the employee was not placed in the correct pay grades.
The corporation argued that the employee was not entitled to the pay scales sought, as corporation employees were governed by different rules separate from those applicable to state civil servants. According to the corporation, the employee’s pay was subject to the financial strength of the Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), and he was instead compensated with Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) rather than the pay scales outlined in SROs.
On perusal of the service record of the employee, the High Court noted that the Pension Payment Order (PPO) which was issued in favour of the employee showed that he was considered as a Govt. employee because the Pension Payment Order (PPO) was issued “only to the Government employees, with pensionable jobs.”
The Bench reiterated the decision of a Co-Ordinate bench in All J&K Workers Union, State Road Transport Corporation v. State of J&K (2013), wherein it was held that once the petitioners were treated on par with the government employees, there was no reason or justification to treat them differently for the purpose of giving the benefit of revised/revision on account of pay revision.
“The respondent No. 3 on the basis of the directions given by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled as “All J&K Workers Union, State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State of J&K & Ors” had declared the petitioner pensionable and extended the petitioner benefits of 7th pay commission which is evident from a communication attached with the service record,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “The rejection order dated 24.08.2018 repudiating the claims of the petitioner are declared as inconsequential/ineffective.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Suraj Parkash v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Abhishek Wazir and Rajat Sudan
Respondents: Advocate R. Koul
