The legal tussle in this case revolves around the principle of “stepping up” of pay, wherein senior employees seek to have their pay adjusted to match that of their juniors when anomalies arise. The case originates from a dispute involving Assistant Professors in Gujarat, who were appointed through the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) in 2001. The appellants, senior to a group of lecturers appointed on an ad hoc basis between 1984 and 1995, contested the disparity in pay scales after the ad hoc lecturers were regularized and given the benefit of higher pay grades based on their ad hoc service. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
The appellants, Maheshkumar Chandulal Patel and others, sought parity in pay under Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002, arguing that their juniors (the ad hoc appointees) were drawing higher salaries due to the counting of their ad hoc service, which they claimed was unjust.
Legal Issues:
The primary issue in this case was whether the principle of stepping up of pay, as outlined in Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002, could be invoked by the appellants to seek pay parity with their juniors, whose ad hoc services had been counted for determining their pay scale.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat High Court’s Division Bench ruling, which had reversed the decision of a Single Judge. The Single Judge had initially granted the appellants the benefit of stepping up their pay under Rule 21. However, the Division Bench set aside this order, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Key Observations:
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed Rule 21 and concluded that the rule was inapplicable in this case. The Court observed that:
1. Strict Compliance with Rule 21: The application of Rule 21 requires strict compliance with its conditions. Specifically, the rule necessitates that any pay anomaly must directly result from the application of the rule, which was not the case here.
2. No Direct Anomaly: The Court found that the alleged pay anomaly arose due to the ad hoc services rendered by the juniors, which were counted for the purpose of their pay scale. This anomaly was not a result of the application of Rule 21, and hence, the rule could not be invoked to remedy the situation.
3. Principle of Equity: The Court emphasized that allowing the appellants’ claims would effectively grant them benefits for years of service they did not render, which would be against the principles of equity.
4. Distinguishing Past Judgments: The Court also distinguished the current case from past judgments cited by the appellants, noting that in those cases, the juniors had not rendered ad hoc services, making the situations different from the present case.
Also Read
Final Judgment:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002, was not applicable in the present case. Consequently, the appellants were not entitled to have their pay stepped up to match that of their juniors.
Case Details
– Case Number: Civil Appeal No. [number of 2024], arising out of SLP (C) No. 9098 of 2018
– Bench:Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
– Appellants: Maheshkumar Chandulal Patel & Others
– Respondents: The State of Gujarat & Others
