TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Schedule `C' posts in respect whereof existing scale of pay of ₹ 7500-200-8500 was revised to ₹ 10000-400-12000. Para 8 of the said OM dated 19.07.1995, which is material for our purpose, reads as under: 8. The administrative Ministries are requested to fix the pay of the incumbents of the Board level posts who were in employment in their enterprises as on 1.1.92 in the manner indicated above and forward their files to the DPE for vetting as required under the existing instructions contained in BPE's DO letter No. 1/1/89-BPE (S A) Cell dated 14.2.89 and DOPT's OM No. 27(14)/C0/89 (ACC) dated 6.12.89, and as per procedure indicated in Annexure -IV. 5. On or about 1.01.1996, appellant made a representation requesting payment of arrears of pay revision inter alia on the ground that he, having been in service on 1.01.1992, was entitled to the benefit of the said OM dated 19.07.1995. The said prayer was rejected by respondent by an order dated 31.01.1996, stating: This has reference to your letter dated 1.1.96 requesting for making the pay revision w.e.f. 1.1.92 applicable to you while you were in the service of the Corporation. Please note that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of the revised scale of pay should be denied to him. In any event, the OM dated 19.07.1995 does not contain any clause in terms whereof the claim of appellant stands excluded. 9. Mr. A. Raghunath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. G. Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, on the other hand, urged that as the State had adopted the aforementioned OM dated 19.07.1995 only with effect from 1.04.1997, the 6 said OM is not applicable in the case of appellant. In any event, appellant having resigned from the service, was not entitled to the benefit thereof. 10. Appellant was not in a pensionable service. He resigned voluntarily. The reason for tendering resignation by him is not known. 11. Whether appellant after submitting his resignation had been working in the better scale of pay is also not known. 12. Ordinarily, a person retiring from service on pensionable post would obtain the benefit of the revision in the scale of pay. This was so held in U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. [(2006) 9 SCC 630] wherein this Court opined: 19. The fact that the appellants herein were treated to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23. The stand of the State of Karnataka that the pensionary benefits had been conferred on the appellants w.e.f. 1.4.1998 on the premise that the benefit of the revision of scales of pay to its own employees had been conferred from 1.1.1998, in our opinion, is wholly misconceived. Firstly, because the employees of the State of Karnataka and the appellants, in the matter of grant of benefit of revised scales of pay, do not stand on the same footing as revised scales of pay had been made applicable to their cases from a different date. Secondly, the appellants had been given the benefit of the revised scales of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1996. It is now well settled that a notification can be issued by the State accepting the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee with retrospective effect as it was beneficent to the employees. Once such a retrospective effect is given to the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee, the concerned employees despite their reaching the age of superannuation in between the said dates and/or the date of issuance of the notification would be deemed to be getting the said scales of pay as on 1.1.1996. By reason of such notification as the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, should have been raised or proper application before the Tribunal should have been filed long long back. It was in the aforementioned situation, the Tribunal was of the opinion that their applications were barred by limitation. Assuming that the cause of action for filing such applications arose in view of the observations made by the Tribunal in its order dated 16.4.1993 passed in Original Application No. 166 of 1990, but then in terms of the Act and the Rules, the respondents were required to file a proper application within a period of one year only. It is borne out from the records that, in fact, 62 such applications were 11 already pending when GOMs No. 126 was issued. Therein U.P. Raghavendra Acharya (supra) was distinguished, stating: 20. Reference has also been made by Mr. Venkataramani to a decision of this Court in U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2006 (6) SCALE 23 wherein it was held that pension is not a bounty and it is a deferred salary. This Court is not concerned herein with such a situation. In the said decision, this Court was concerned with a case where an employee retiring on a particular date was to receive 50% of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
