Summary
The Supreme Court held that directly recruited Assistant Professors in Gujarat Government colleges could not have their pay stepped up under Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 to match junior colleagues who were paid more because their earlier ad hoc service was counted for Senior Scale and Selection Grade. The anomaly did not result directly from applying the Rule, and the appellants cannot gain the benefit of years they never served.
Issues
- Whether Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 entitles senior direct recruits to have their pay stepped up to that of juniors who got higher pay because their past ad hoc service was counted for Senior Scale and Selection Grade.
- Whether such stepping up would wrongly give the appellants the benefit of years in which they were not in the cadre.
Provisions considered
- Rule 21 (including condition (v) of sub-rule (1)), Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002Rule 21 allows a senior's pay to be stepped up to a junior's only if all its conditions are strictly met, including condition (v) that the anomaly be the direct result of applying the Rule. Assuming in the appellants' favour that the Career Advancement Scheme was a promotion, the Court held the Rule inapplicable because the juniors' higher pay came from counting their past ad hoc service. (¶¶ 6, 29, 30, 31, 32, 39)
Held
- Since the appellants had challenged neither the Government Resolution of 22.12.2014 nor the order of 10.08.2015 granting Senior Scale and Selection Grade to 85 erstwhile ad hoc lecturers, nor impleaded them, their eligibility for those benefits was not in issue; the Court proceeded on the basis that the appellants were senior and that, even if the Career Advancement Scheme were treated as promotion, the question was only whether Rule 21 applied. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30)
- Rule 21 demands strict compliance and applies only when every condition is fulfilled; condition (v) requires the anomaly to be the direct result of applying the Rule, and it does not apply where the junior draws higher pay because of fixation under the normal rules or advance increments. (¶ 31)
- The pay disparity here arose because the juniors' earlier ad hoc service was counted for Senior Scale and Selection Grade, not because of Rule 21, so the Rule did not apply. (¶¶ 32, 39)
- Stepping up would give the appellants the benefit of years before they joined the cadre, during which they rendered no service; this would be against equity, and pay benefits cannot be claimed for service not actually rendered. (¶ 33)
- Following R. Swaminathan and M. Suryanarayana Rao, higher pay drawn by a junior because of earlier ad hoc or officiating service is not an anomaly calling for stepping up, as pay does not depend on seniority alone; Madhava Murthy, Gurcharan Singh Grewal and Ashok Ram Parhad were distinguished as not involving ad hoc service or as concerning inter se seniority. (¶¶ 34, 36, 37)
Result
Appeals dismissed; the Division Bench judgment holding Rule 21 of the 2002 Pay Rules inapplicable affirmed; pending applications disposed of.