Holding

Pay revision is to be made with reference to the employee's existing pre‑revision pay scale, not the classification of the post, and the appellant is not entitled to the higher Group C pay scale.

Summary

The appellant, a lineman in the Lakshadweep Electricity Department, claimed a higher pay scale after the Fourth Pay Commission because his post was classified as Group C. The Central Administrative Tribunal had granted his claim, but the High Court set it aside, relying on Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan. The appellant argued that Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 required pay revision to be based on the class of post rather than the pre‑revision pay scale. The Supreme Court examined the First Schedule of the Rules, distinguishing Part A (which links revised scales to existing scales) from Part B (which considers both post and existing scale). It held that the revision must be with reference to the existing pay scale, not the post classification, and that Rule 5 does not create an exception to this principle. Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to the Group C minimum scale and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether pay revision under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 should be determined by the classification of the post (Group C) or by the employee's existing pre‑revision pay scale.
Whether Rule 5 of the Revised Pay Rules creates an exception allowing a Group C employee to draw a higher revised pay scale irrespective of his existing scale.
Whether the decision in Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan should be treated as per incurium and thus not binding.

Legislation cited

Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986s. Rule 4, s. Rule 5

Subjects

Pay revisionCentral Civil Services (Revised Pay) RulesRule 5Classification of postsGroup CService lawFourth Pay CommissionPer incuriumPrecedent

Judgment

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 917

KUNNASHADA MUTHUKOYA A
II.
ADMINISTRATOR U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.3537 of 2001)
AUGUST 29, 2008
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Service Law - Pay revision - Of Government servant-
Held: Should be with reference to the pay scale earlier
applicable to him and not with reference to the class of post c
held by him - r.5 did not mean that if a government servant
was in a post classified as a Group ·c· post with an existing
pay scale shown as a Group 'D' pay scale, the government
servant would get the pay scale applicable to a Group ·c· post
- Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, {986.,.. r.5.
D
Appellant was a lineman in the Electricity department.
.ir As per the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
1986, made for implementing the recommendations made
by the Fourth Pay Commission, the pay scale of Appellant.
was revised from Rs.210-290 to Rs.800-1150. E
Appellant, however, sought higher pay scale
contending that the post of lineman was classified as a
group C post, hence, he should be given benefit of the
minimum of the pay scales prescribed for group ·c• posts
under the said Revised Pay Rules, i.e. Rs.825-1200. F·
The Tribunal upheld the claim of Appellant holding
that though the pay scale of Rs.800-1150 was a group ·o·
pay scale but since Appellant was in a Group ·c· post, he
was entitled to the minimum pay scale applicable to group G
·c· posts after revision of pay scales i.e. Rs.825-1200.
High Court, by following the decision of this Court in
Hariharan's case, held that as the pay scale applicable to
Appellant before the pay revision was Rs.210-290, he was
917 H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R

A entitled only to the corresponding revised pay scale of
Rs.800-1150 under the Revised Pay Rules, and that he
was not entitled to a higher pay scale and accordingly
set aside the order of Tribunal.
Before this Court, the Appellant contended that
8 having regard to Rule 5 of the said Revised Pay. Rules,
the revision of pay of a government servant should be )-·
with reference to the class of post held by him and not
with reference to the pay scale earlier applicable to him
and as the appellant held a Group ·c·
post, the pay scale t
C applicable to Group 'C' government servants should be
extended to him. He contended that the decision in
Hariharan should be considered as having been rende.red
per incurium, as it ignored Rule. 5 of the Revised Pay
Rules and a decision rendered per incurium is not a binding
D precedent. · ·
Dismissing t.he a~peal, the Court
· HELD:1.1. The First Schedule to· the Central· Civil
Se'rvices (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 consists of two parts.
E Part A relates to ''revised ·scales for posts carrying present
scales in Groups D, C & B except posts for which different
revised scales are notified separately" while Part B .relates
to "revised scales of pay for certain other categories of
stc:1ff." From a combined reading of the provisions of th.e
F Revised Pay it follows: (i) From 1.1.1986, the scale of pay
of every post specified in column (2) of the First Schedule
was as specified against it in column (4) of the First
Schedule. (ii) Part A o·f the First Schedule did< not
individually name the several posts for which the revised
G pay scales were prescribed. It grouped the posts, with
reference to the existing (pre-revision) pay scale and
prescribed a single .revised pay scale. Therefore in regard
to posts covered by Part A (that is posts excluding thos.e
specified in Part B) the. entitlement of a go.veminent
servant to the revised scale of pay was with reference "to
H
KUNNASHADA MUTHUKOYA v. ADMINISTRATOR 919
U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP & ANR.

-1 the existing scale of pay (that is pre-revised scale A
applicable to h_im as on 1.1.1986 when the revised scales ,
of pay came into effect). All posts carrying a particular
pay· scale before the revision, were· given the·
corresponding revised pay scale shown in the First ·
Schedule. The pay revision was thus with reference to B ·
the existing pay scale drawn by the government servant
~ and not with reference to the 'post' held by him. (iii) Part
B of First Schedule, on the other hand, specifically
described certain posts, as for example, Junior Engineer,
Technical Supervisor etc., while prescribing the revised c
pay scales. In regard to posts described in Part B, both
the 'post' and the existing scale of pay became relevant
for finding out .the corresponding revised scale of pay.
(iv) The Revised Pay Rules did not change the
classification of posts. The fact that the First Schedule D
classified the pay scales for convenience under the
headings 'Group D' and 'Groups C & B' did not mean that
+ a government servant working in Group ·c· but whose
existing scale of pay was shown under the heading Group
'D', could ignore his existing scale and claim tbe benefit
of a revised scale corresponding to some other higher E
pre-revised scale of pay. (v) The object and intent of r.5
was to bring all government servants covered by the
Revised Pay Rules to the revised scales except those
who elected to continue to drawing pay in the existing
scales. [Paras 7.3, 9] [925-C; 926-E,F,G,H; 927-A to F] F
1.2. The contention of appellant that pay revision
should be with reference to post held and not existing
pay scales, if accepted would have lead to confusion,
uncertainty and inconsistency. Its effect, in the case of G .·
appellant; would have been to first upgrade the existing
pay scale from Rs.210-4-226- B-4-250-EB-5-290 to Rs.225-
.5-260-6-290-EB-6-308 and then grant the revised pay scale
corresponding to such upgraded higher pay scale with
effect from 1.1.1986. Rule 4 read with First Schedule made
H
•

920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A it clear that the government servant was only entitled to
the revised pay scale corresponding to his existing pay
scale (and not any other revised pay scale corresponding
to some higher pre.:revised scale). Rule 5 does not mean
that if a government servant was in a post classified as a
B Group 'C' post with an existing pay scale shown in the
First Schedule as Cl Group 'D' pay scale, the government
servant would get the pay scale applicable to a Group ·c·
post. In fact there are several revised pay scales in Part I-
A of the First Schedule for Group 'C' posts. If the r
c contention of the appellant was to be accepted, and the
f-

revised pay $Cale to be given to him was to be delinked
from the existing pay scale, then he could have chosen
any of the several revised pay scales c.orresponding to
pay scales shown as Group 'C' scales (that is Rs.825·
1200 or Rs.950-1400 or 950-1500 or 975-1540 etc) as he
0
did not fit into any. of the existing pay scales of Group ·c·.
Obviously such a course was clearly impermissible. All
that Rule 5 provided was that except those who exercised +
option to continue to draw pay in the existing pay scale,
others should draw their pay only in the revised pay scale
· E corresponding to his existing pay scale and that he could
not draw any. other pay scale. Further a person who fell
under part A of First Schedule could not draw the pay
provided .in Part 8 of First Schedule and vice versa. [Para
10][927~(3 & H; 928-A,B,C,D & E]
F
.· 1.3. Rule 5 in the Revised Pay Rules is not a new
provision, but same as Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 1973 relating to the earlier pay
revision. The said rule had never been interpreted in the
G manner suggested by the Appellant. The contention, that
Hariharan ignored Rule 5 and should therefore be
considered as per incurium, is untenable. [Paras 11,12]
[928-F ·& G]
Union of India v. P V Hariharen. 1997 (3) SCC 568-
H referred to.
KUNNASHADA MUTHUKOYA v. ADMINISTRATOR 921
U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP & ANR. [R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.]

Case Law Reference A
1997 (3) sec sss referred to Para 3
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3537
of 2001
From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.1.2000 of 8
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Original Petition No.
~ 13965 of 1998 (S)
Mathai M. Paikeday, Shishir Pinaki, Anuj Prakash and
Sanjay Jain for the Appellant. c
Ashok Bhan, Varuna Bhandari Gugnani and D.S. Mahra
... for the Respondents .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. The appellant was promoted D
as a lineman, a group 'C' post, in the Lakshadweep Electricity
department, on 2.2.1985. The pay scale of lineman was initially
+ Rs.85-2-95-3-110 which was revised to Rs.210-4-226-EB-4-
250-EB-5-290. The pay scale was further revised to Rs.800-
15-1010-EB-20-1150 as per Central Civil Services (Revised E
Pay) Rules, 1986 (for short 'Revised Pay Rules'). The appellant
gave a representation dated 1.10.1994 requesting a higher
pay scale. He contended that as the post of lineman was
classified as a group C post, he should be given the benefit of
the minimum of the pay scales prescribed for group 'C' posts It
under the Revised Pay Rules, that is Rs.825-15-900-EB-20-
1200.
2. By Office Memorandum dated 9.8.1995 the respondent
rejected the representation of appellant for grant of the higher
pay scale of Rs.825-1200. The said memorandum stated that G
though the post of lineman was a group 'C' post, the revised
pay scale applicable to the said post was that which
corresponded to pre-revision pay-scale of Rs.210-290 drawn
by linemen and therefore appellant was entitled only to the
revised pay scale of Rs.800-1150. It was also stated that the H
922 SUPREME COURT :REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A duties and responsibilities of linemen in the Electricity t-
Departmen.t differed substantially from linemen in other
. departments (that is Linemen/Wireman in telecommunications,
Postmen/ Mailguards·in Postaldepartmerit etc.); thatthe<Fourth
·Pay Commiss.ion had recommended the higher pay scale of
B Rs:825-15~900-'EB-20-1200 only for linemen and wiremen in
the Telecommunication Department on the specific condition
that their recruitment qualifications should be raised; and'that 't-·
the revised pay scale of Rs.800-1150 given to the appellant
was. therefo,re in accordance with the fourth pay commission's ;.
c recommendations.
3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Tribunal allowed !"1
the application by order dated 28.6.1997 and quashed the O.M.
dated 9.8.1995. ·The Tribunal held that as the appellant was in
ne
D a. gro,':JP· 'C' post,_ was entitled to t.he minimum pay scale
;.
applicable to grqup 'C' posts, after the revision of pay scales;
that unqer the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986, the pay scale
of Rs.800-1150 was.a group 'D' pay scale and the lowest pay +
scale applicable to group 'C' posts was Rs:825-1200; and that
E therefore the appellant was entitled to the revised pay scale of
Rs.825-1200 from 1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits. The
respondents challenged the said order in a writ petition
(O:.P.No.13965/1998) before the High Court of Kerala. The High
Court allowed the writ petition ·by order dated 27.1.2000
F . following the .decision of this Court in Union of. India -V.. P V.
Hafiharan [1997 (3) SCC 568]. The High Court held that as the
pay scale applicable to the appellant before the pay revision
was Rs.210-290, he was entitled only to the corresponding
revised pay scale of Rs.800-1150 under the Revised Pay Rules,
and that he was not entitled to a higher pay scale. The said
G order ls challenged in this appeal by .special leave. The only
question that therefore arises for our consideration is whether A_
....
the appellant was· entitled to the benefit of higher pay scale of .._
Rs.8Z5-12oo:as he was holding a Group 'C' -post. ,_
H , 4. In Hariharan (supra), this Court considered a similar -~·'
' F

r
KUNNASHADA MUTHUKOYA v. ADMINISTRATOR 923.
U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP & ANR. [RVRAVEENDRAN, J.]

:I claim by Tool Room Assistants in the Fisheries department, A
whose pay. scale was initially Rs.85-128, revised to Rs.210-
290. After the Fourth Pay Commission recommendations, they
were given the revised pay scale of Rs.800-1150. The Tribunal
held that as the post held by them was included in Group 'C',
they were entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs.1150-2900. B
Reversing the said decisio_n, this Court held:
. ·-r "We are unable to appreciate the reasoning or appro~ch of
the Tribunal. The-pay scale of Tool Room Assistant in IFP is ·
Rs.800-1150 ..... Assuming that the said post was mentioned
under Group C, it may be - or may not be - an error. What c
is material is that the classification cannot result in change of
pay scale frorn Rs.800-1150 to Rs.1150-2900. This is simply
- · unimaginable. Pay scales are what are prescribed for each
· post by the Government which is very often. done on the basis
of recommendations of a Pay Commission or a similar expert
D
body. Classification of posts has nothing to dowithfixation of
pay scales; it only classifies posts into several groups based '
j
upon the pay scales already fixed. Classification and
-+ prescribing pay scales for several posts are two different and
distinct functions. The Tribunal's order is, in our opinion, wholly
unsustainable in law." E
(Emphasis. supplied)
5. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded
that if the ratio of Hariharan is applied, the appellant's claim is
liable to be rejected. But he contended that the decision in F
Hariharan should be considered as having been rendered per
-->
incurium, as it ignores Rule 5 of the Revised Pay Rules. Relying
on the decisions of this Court in Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of
M. P [2004 (7) SCC 558] and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra
, Community v. State of Maharashtra [2005 (2) SCC 673], he G
submitted that a decision rendered per incurium is not a binding
-A
p precedent. According to the appellant, having regard to Rule 5
of the Revised Pay Rules, the revision of pay of a government
servant should be with reference to the class of post held by
him and not with reference to the pay scale earlier applicable
H
. 924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A to him. He therefore contended that as the appellant held a t-·
Group 'C' post, the pay scale applicable to Group 'C' government
servants should be extended to him.
6. The principles enunciated in Hariharan is that
'classification of posts has nothing to do .with fixation of pay
B scales" and "classification and prescribing pay scales for
different posts are two different and distinct functions". These
are well settled princiRles of service jurisprudence. The question 'r"
therefore is whether Rule 5 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986
carves out any exception to the said general principles of service
c law, or lays down a different principle, and if so whether Rule 5
had been wrongly ignored.
7. The Revised Pay Rules were made to implement the
recommendations made by the Fourth Pay Commission. A brief
reference to the relevant provisions of the said Rules will be
D
necessary to consider the appellant's contention.
7.1) Sub-Rules (2), (3), c;ind (5) of Rule 3 define the terms
'Existing Scale', 'Present Scale' and 'Revised Scale'. 'Existing +
Scale' in relation to a Government servant means the present
E scale applicable to the post held by the Government servant as
on 1.1.1986. 'Present Scale' in relation to any post specified in
Column 2 of the First Schedule, means the scale of pay specified
against that post in Column 3 thereof. 'Revised Scale' in relation
to any post specified in column (2) of the First Schedule means
F the scale of pay specified against that post in column (4) thereof
unless a different revised scale is notified separately for that
~
post. Rule 4 provides that from the date·of commencement of
the revised pay rules (1.1.1986), the scale of pay of every post
specified in column (2) of the First Schedule shall be as
specified against it in column (4) thereof.
G ...
7.2) Rule 5 relied on by the appellant, relating to drawal of k
. pay in the revised scales is extracted below :
"5. Drawal of pay in the revised scales : Save as otherwise
"
provided in these rules, a Government servant shall draw pay
H
KUNNASHADA MUTHUKOYA v. ADMINISTRATOR 925
U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP & ANR. [R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.]
-1 in the revised -scale applicable to the post to which he is A
II appointed.
Provided that a government servant may elect to continue to
draw pay in the existing scale until the date on which he earns
his next or any subsequent increment in the existing scale or
until he vacates his post or ceases to draw pay in that scale. 8
Explanations 1, 2, 3 : xx xx x (omitted as not relevant)"

Rule 6 provides how the option under the proviso to Rule
5 should be exercised.

7.3) The First Schedule to the Revised Pay Rules consists
c
of two parts. Part A relates to "revised scales for posts carrying
present scales in Groups D, C & B except posts for which
different revised scales are notified separately." Part B relates
to "revised scales of pay for certain other categories of staff."
The relevant entries in the First Schedule are extracted below: ()

='!
THE FIRST SCHEDULE (See Rules 3 & 4) - PART A
-+
(Revised scales for posts carrying present scales in Group
D, C & B except posts for which different revised scales are
notified separately) E
SI.No. Post Present scale Revised scale
(1) (2) (3) (4)
GROUP'D'
xxxxx
I

3. All posts carrying (a) xx xx x 800-15~ 1, 01 O-EB-20- F
present scales spe- (b) x x x x x 1,150
citied in Column 3. (c) 210-4-226-EB-4-
250-EB-5-290
GROUPS 'C' AND 'B'
4. All posts carrying 225-5-260--6-290-EB- j 825-15-900-EB-20-
present scales spe- 6-308 11.100
citied in column 3. xx xx x I
8. The Central Government has issued an Explanatory
Memorandum to understand and implement the CCS (Revised H
.---
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S. C.R.

,__
A Pay) Rules, 1986. The explanation given therein in regard to
Rule 5 is extracted below: Ir
"Re : Rule 5. The intention is that all Government servants
should be brought over to the revised scales except those
who elect to draw pay in the existing scales. Those who
B exercise the option to continue on the existing scales of pay
\
I
;-
will continue to draw the dearness pay, dearness allowance,
ad hbc dearness all.owance and interim reliefs at the rates in
force on the 1st January, 1986 and the dearn·ess pay will count """"
.-- towards ho·use rent and compensatory allowances,
c emoluments for pension, etc. to the extent it so_ counted on
the said date. If a Government servant is holding a permanent
post in a substantiv~, capacity and officiating in a higher post
or would have officiated in one or more posts but for his being
on deputation etc., he has the option to retain the existing
scale only in respect of one scale. Such a Government servant
D may retain the existing scale applicable to a permanent post
or any one of the officiating posts. In respect of the remaining
posts~he will necessarily have to be brought over to the revised,
scales." +.
9. Th~ position that emerged from a combined reading of I
E the provisions of the Revis13d ·Pay Rules in the context of the
question raised by the appellant was as follows :
(i) As from 1.1.1986, the scale of pay of every post
specified in column (2) of the First Schedule was as
F specified against it in column (4) of the First
Schedule. ·
.~ ~;:-

(ii) Part A of the First Schedule did not individually name
the several posts for which the revised pay scales
were prescribed. It grouped the posts, with refe.rence
G to the existing (pre-revision) pay scale a·nd
prescribed a single revised pay scale. Therefore in k ,,
.......
regard to posts covered by .Part A (thaCIS posts
excluding those specified in Part B) the entitlement
of a government servant to the revised scale of pay
. \
H was with reference to the existing scale of pay (that
"'-

K4JNNASHADA MUTHUKOYA v. ADMINISTRATOR 927
U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP & ANR. [R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J~]

is pre-revised scale applicable to him as on 1.1.1986 A"
when the revised scales of pay came into effect). All
posts carrying a particular pay sea.le before the
revision, were given the corresponding revised pay
scale shown in the First Schedule. The pay revision
was thus with reference to th_e existing pay scale
drawn by the government servant and not with
a
reference to the 'post' held by him.
(iii) Part B of First Schedule, on.Jhe ..other hand,
specifically descrtbed .certain posts, as for example,
Junior Engineer, TechnicaLSupervisor etc., while c
prescribing the revised pay scales.:·ln regard to posts
described in Part B, both the 'post' and the existing
scale of pay became relevant for finding out the
corresponding revised scale of pay.
D
(iv) The Revised Pay Rules did not change the
classification of posts. The fact that tile First Schedule
classified the pay scales for convenience under the
hea.dings 'Group D' and 'Groups C & B' did not mean
that a government servant working in Group 'C' but
whose existing scale of pay was shown under the E
. .
heading Group 'D', could ignore his existing ".
scale
.
and claim the benefit of a revised scale corresponding
to some other higher pre-revised scale of pay. -...;

(v) The object and intent of Rule 5 was--to bring all F
government servants covered by the Revised Pay
Rules to the revised scales except those who elected
to continue to drawing pay in the existing scales.
-..
'
10. The contention of appellant that pay revision should
~ be ·with reference to post held and not existing pay scales, if G
',
accepted would have lead to confusion, uncertainty .and
inconsistency. Its effect, in the case of appellant, would have
been to first upgrade the existing pay scale from Rs.210-4-
226-EB-4·250-EB-5-290 to Rs.225-5-260-6-290-EB-6-308
and then grant the rev.ised pay scale corresponding to such H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

~·
r-

A upgraded higher pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986. Rule 4 -
read with First Schedule made it clear ,that the government
servant was only entitled to the revised pay scale corresponding
to his existing pay scale (and not any other revis~d pay scale
corresponding to some higher pre-revised scale). Rule 5 does
B not mean that if a government servant was in a post classified
as a Group 'C' post with an existing pay scale shown in the First
Schedule as a Group 'D' pay scale, the government servant
would get the pay scale applicable to a Group 'C' post. In fact
there are several revised pay scales in Part A of the First
c Schedule for Group 'C' posts. If the contention of the appellant
was to be accepted, and the revised pay scale to be given to him
was to be delinked from the existing pay scale, then he could
have chosen any of the several revised pay scales corresponding
to pay scales shown as Group 'C' scales (that is Rs.825-1200
or Rs.950-1400 or 950-1500 or.975-1540 etc) as he did not fit
D
into any of the existing pay scales of Group 'C' .. Obviously such
a course was clearly impermissible. All that Rule 5 provided was
that except those who exercised option to continue to draw pay
+
in the existing pay scale, others should draw their pay only in the
revised pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale and
E that he could not draw any other pay scale. Further a person who
fell under part A of First Schedule could not draw the pay provided
in Part B of First Schedule and vice versa.
11. It is also of some relevance to note that Rule 5 in the
F Revised Pay Rules is not a new provision, but same as Rule 5
of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1973 relating ~

to the earlier pay revision. The said rule had never been
interpreted in the manner suggested by th·e Appellant. Be that
as it may.
G 12. For the reasons aforesaid, the contention that Hariharan
(supra) ignored Rule 5 and should therefore be considered as * -- ~

per incurium is untenable. The said contention is rejected. The
appeal is therefore dismissed as having no merit.

B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.
H