Summary
The Supreme Court upheld 1 April 2001 as the effective date for the higher prosecution-cadre pay scale granted on analogy with CBI posts. This was a new benefit, distinct from the Fifth Pay Commission revision already extended from 1 January 1996. A rational commencement date could be fixed without backdating the new parity benefit. The respondent, who retired in January 1997, was outside the later order and could not obtain revised pension on that basis.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution-cadre pay upgradation had to relate back to the Fifth Pay Commission’s effective date.
- Whether judgments concerning other departments required identical treatment of the respondent.
Held
- The respondent had already received the Fifth Pay Commission revision and consequent pension revision. The later committee recommendation introduced a further upgradation by adopting the analogy of CBI posts for the first time, expressly from 1 April 2001. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14, 15, 16)
- Different departmental pay structures and recommendations required examination on their own facts. Judgments extending earlier dates to other departments did not establish that the prosecution-cadre commencement date was arbitrary. The precedent concerning exclusion from an accepted Pay Commission revision was also distinguishable. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- When extending a new benefit to an employee category, the State may fix a rational effective date. The conscious choice of 1 April 2001 for the new CBI-based benefit was not arbitrary and need not coincide with the 1996 Pay Commission date. The respondent’s 1997 retirement placed him outside the order’s coverage. (¶¶ 16, 19)
Result
State appeal allowed; High Court judgment granting the higher pay-scale benefit from 1 January 1996 set aside.