The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group! Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred

"Benefit Cannot Be Claimed for Years Not Served," Supreme Court Declares in Pay Parity Judgment

27 August 2024 10:50 AM

By: sayum


The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, dismissed a series of appeals challenging the denial of pay parity between senior regular appointees and their junior counterparts who initially served on an ad hoc basis. The court ruled that Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002, which permits stepping up of pay, is inapplicable when the disparity arises from factors other than those explicitly mentioned in the rule. This decision has significant implications for the interpretation of service laws concerning pay discrepancies due to ad hoc appointments.

The appellants in the case were senior Assistant Professors directly recruited by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) in 2001. They challenged the disparity in pay between themselves and a group of junior Assistant Professors, who were initially appointed on an ad hoc basis during 1984-1995 and later regularized. The appellants contended that Rule 21 of the 2002 Pay Rules entitled them to have their pay stepped up to match that of their juniors.

The controversy began with a Government Resolution in 2015, which allowed the ad hoc services of these junior Assistant Professors to be counted for pay and pension benefits, leading to a higher pay scale for them. The appellants sought judicial intervention to rectify this anomaly, which they argued violated the principle of equal pay for equal work.

The Supreme Court emphasized that Rule 21 could only be invoked if the pay disparity was a direct consequence of the rule itself. "A strict compliance of Rule 21 is necessary, and it shall apply only if the conditions specified therein are fulfilled," the Court noted. The bench clarified that the rule was not designed to address anomalies arising from the regularization of ad hoc services​.

The Court observed that the pay disparity resulted from the counting of ad hoc services for the 1984-95 group, which the appellants had not rendered. The Court ruled that granting the appellants’ request would effectively reward them for years of service they had not performed, which would be inequitable. The Court stated, "Such a benefit cannot be claimed by the Petitioners for the years of service that they have not actually rendered"​.

The judgment relied heavily on the precedents set by the Supreme Court in R. Swaminathan and M. Suryanarayana Rao, where the Court had previously ruled that differences in pay due to ad hoc service do not constitute an anomaly that would trigger the application of stepping up provisions. The Court reiterated, "The difference in pay cannot be considered as an anomaly requiring the stepping up of the pay of the seniors"​.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms the limited scope of Rule 21 concerning pay parity in the context of service law. By dismissing the appeals, the Court underscored that only anomalies directly resulting from the application of Rule 21 are subject to correction under its provisions. This judgment clarifies the legal framework surrounding pay disparities arising from the regularization of ad hoc services, setting a precedent likely to influence future cases in the public sector.

 

Date of Decision: August 14, 2024

Maheshkumar Chandulal Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Similar News