9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) issued by the State Government under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. That depends on whether the Government is competent to withhold the Selection Grade pay-scales contrary to FR 22(a) (ii) to which the respondents were entitled on their being appointed to Selection Grade posts. The Government tries to justify such fixation of pay at a lower level than the minimum of the Selection Grade pay-scales on the basis that it was to ensure that seniors holding higher posts do not draw in such higher posts a pay less than what is drawn by their juniors in the lower posts in the Selection Grade. The litigative propensities of the Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rements to the maximum of the revised scale of pay. The pay-scales for the Selection Grade so fixed were found to have a higher start than the minimum pay prescribed for the next higher category of posts. Some of the senior persons holding permanent posts in one category, but holding posts in the next higher category on promotion were found to draw less pay in the higher posts as compared to their juniors in the lower category who were given the Selection Grade scale of pay. The Government felt that this would result in serious discontentment among the senior employees holding higher posts but drawing less pay than the minimum prescribed for the Selection Grade in the lower category. At a meeting of the Secretaries to Government held on Jun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 16 and was also contrary to the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Art. 39 of the Constitution, according to which there shall be equal pay for equal work. The learned Judge was of the view that the Government having created Selection Grade posts carrying a certain scale of pay and having appointed persons to those posts, it was not open to them to allow that pay to some and deny to others on the ground that their seniors working elsewhere were not drawing the same scale of pay. The Government preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of Chinnappa Reddy, J., and made a grievance that while the writ petition was pending the offending U.O. Note (No. 808/PC/ 69-I dated July 26, 1969) had been substituted by s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a higher post. In D. Krishnamurthy Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh Anr. (Writ Petition No. 4459 of 1972), Muktadar, J., by his judgment dated August 12, 1974, struck down the rule as it was violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The learned Judge observed that in view of the decision of this Court in B. S. Vadera v. Union of India, Ors it was settled law that rules framed under the proviso to Art 309 of the Constitution, whether retrospective or prospective in effect, must be enforced, if framed by the appropriate authority, unless it can be shown that the rules so framed are in violation of any of the rights guaranteed under Part III or any other provision of the Constitution. He was of the view that sub-r. (2) of r.5 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned Judge observed: To put in the words Chinnappa Reddy, J. it amounts to denial of the principle of equal pay for equal work enshrined in Art. 39 of the Constitution as one of the Directive Principles of State Policy and violates Arts. 14 and 16 which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in the matter of public employment. The appellant, in the supplementary affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance and Planning: Department (Finance Wing) admits that the judgment of Muktadar, J., in Krishnamurthy s case supra had become final because steps were not taken in time to go in appeal; but, nonetheless, asserts that since the matter before the learned Judge related to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s who have secured such directions. It is impressed upon us that the Government wants a decision on merits as the matter involved a question of principle. We were asked to determine the validity of sub-r. (2) of r.5. It was urged that the Government wants a clear pronouncement on the extent of their powers in the matter relating to fixation of pay of a person appointed to the Selection Grade, in accordance with sub-r.(2) of r.5. We are afraid, the question does not arise in these appeals. It is quite clear from the judgments under appeal that the validity of sub-r. (2) of r.5 was not in question. We are constrained to observe that if the Government wanted to question the correctness of the judgment in D. Krishnamurthy s case, the selection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
