Holding

The petitioners are not entitled to the Rs.260-430 pay scale and the government's refixation of their pay to Rs.225-308 with special pay is valid, requiring restoration of the previously recovered excess amount.

Summary

The petitioners, Radio Operators Grade III (Naik) of the Central Reserve Police Force, challenged their placement in the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1973 pay scale of Rs.225-308 with a special pay of Rs.30, claiming entitlement to a higher scale of Rs.260-430 based on qualification requirements and parity with civil‑service employees. They also contested the recovery of excess salary previously paid. The Court examined whether the qualification of matriculation, which became mandatory only in 1975, could be used to justify a higher pay scale in 1973, and held that the petitioners could not rely on a qualification that did not exist at the relevant date. It further ruled that the Court could only assess the legality of the government’s prescribed pay scale, not determine how far below it should be relative to higher posts, and found no legal basis to grant the higher scale. The Court also rejected the claim of parity with civil‑side employees, noting distinct benefits enjoyed by the petitioners. Finally, it found that the initial computation of the revised pay erroneously included the special pay for accretion, but this did not invalidate the refixation, and ordered restoration of the excess amount previously recovered.

Issues considered

Whether Radio Operators Grade III (Naik) are entitled to the Rs.260-430 pay scale on the basis of the matriculation qualification requirement.
Whether the petitioners can claim parity in pay with comparable civil‑service employees.
Whether the government's refixation of the petitioners' pay to the Rs.225-308 scale, with a special pay of Rs.30, is valid.
Whether the government may recover the excess salary previously paid to the petitioners.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

pay scaleCentral Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1973CRPFspecial payqualification requirementparity with civil serviceArticle 32writ petition

Judgment

I . A

> S. L. AHMED & OTHERS

v.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

July 26, 1982

(R.S. PATHAK A.ND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.)
•
C
,,
Central.Civil Strvlct1 (Rev/std Pay) Rul.s, 1973-R.,lslon of•<•I• ofpay-
Radio Optrators Grade Ill (Naik) In C.R.P.F-Yalldlty of,'

An identical scale of pay was being enjoyed by both Naiks and Radio
Operators Grade III (Naik) in the Central Reserve Police Poree before the revi-
sion of scales of pay, of Central Government employees with effect from January
1, 1973 consequent upon the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission.
However, Radio Operators Grade Ill -(Naik) were entitled to a special pay of ·o
Rs. 30. The Pay Commi.Sion recoinmended the scale of pay of Rs. 225-308
·ror the post of Naik but did not make any separate recommendation in reSpect
of Radio Operator Grade Ill (Naik),

The petitioners who were Radio Operators Grade Ill (Naik) were initially
paid a salary of Rs. 250 with a special pay of Rs. 30 from January I. 1973.
They were subsequently placed in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 225-308 given E
to Naiks with a special pay of Rs. 30 and the excess &mount paid earlier was
sought to be recovered from therli.

The petitioners contended : (i) that they were entitled to the scale of pay
of Rs. 260-430 as that. was the scale of pay prescnbed for posts in oiher depan-
• ments for which matriculation was the minimum qualification, (ii) that their scale
of pay could not be far below the scale of pay of Rs. 330·480 prescribed for the F
next immediate seriior post of Radio Oi>erator Grade II and (iii) that they should
be paid at par with comparable government employees on the civil side. In the
alternative, the petitioners contended that they were entitled to the pay of.Rs. 250
\
' and the special pay of Rs. 30 patd to them befol-e refixation of their salary.

G
Dism_issing the petition, .

HELD: l. The minimum quali'&ation prescribed for the post of Naik as
• on :January 1, 1973 was Middle School Examination and it bad been raised to
Matriculation Eiamination only fron;1 JanuarY 24. 1975. As Naiks and Radio
Operators Grado Ill (Naik) had been uniformly treated at par i~ the matter of that H
basic qualification, it was not open to the petitioners to base their claim with ~f".,
ronce to a qualification which had not ex.isl~ gn Jan~~!Y. 11 197$. [S . ll-Gl
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A 2. It was not for the Court to examine how far below should, be the
revised scale of pay of Radio Operators Grade Ill as compared to that of Radio
Operators Grade II. . If the Government had prescribed a particlllar pay Scale in
respect of them. alJ that the Court Could do wa.S tO merely pronounce on the vali-
dity of that fixation. If the prescription was found contrary to law, the Court
would strike it down and direct the Government to take a fresh decision in the
matter. •This case was very different from one where" the' Court had sought to
B prescribe scaieS of pay in appeals directly prefer~ed from an award of the Labour
'Court dealing with such a matter. Jn the. latter case, the Court in its appellate
jurisdiction could be regarded as enjoying all the jurisdiction which the LaboUr
Court enjoyed. [6 A-CJ · ·'

3. · Radio Operators Grade III (Naik) had to be considered substantially ·
c on the 'iame basis as Naiks and it was because of their special qualifications and
. of the specialised nature of their duties that they had been ·provided with a special
pay in addition: Ever since 1975 Radio Operators Grade III (Naik) had been
selecied only from the rank of Constables on the General Duty Side. The revis- •
ed pay·scale of Radio Operators of 1he ·rank of Head ConstabJe·as well as Head
Constables on General Duty was Rs. 260-350 with a special pay of Rs. 40 to the
former. As this post was the next immediate higher post above the rank of Naik.,
.D ·it was apparent that there was no justification for giving to the petitioners. Who·
were junior in rank, the scaJe of pay of Rs. 260-430. (6 D-F]

4- · The petitioners could not claim to be paid at par with comparable
government employees on the civil side as-they_ were entitled to certain benefits
.which were not .available to the latter. [6 G-H; 7 A·Bl .

S. ' The revised p3,y initially paid to the petitioners h~d been con:iputed ill
error inasmuch as when fixing the pay in- the revised scale the special pay had
been wrongly taken into account. [7 D-:El

' ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 3783 of 1978 •.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
I
R.K. Garg and V.J; Francis for the Petitioner. ·

· M.M; Abdul Khader, Mrs- Shobha Dikshit and Miss A.
Subhshini for the Respondents. ''
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
. . . I
,
PAmAK, J, The Pet.itioners are-Radio operators Grade-(III) I
(Naik) in the Signals branch of the Central Reserve Police Force.
11 . They complain that under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay)
Rules, 1973 ·they have been placed in the pay scale Rs. 225-30&
· when the1 were el)titll'd !9 !lie pay ~!i~le R~. 260-430, •, ' .
S.L. AHMilD'v. UNION (Pathak, J,) 3
. ..
When the writ petition cam~ on for hearing in the first A
)
instance, a· Bench of this Court made an order on December 19,
!979 providing ,an opportunity ·to the. petiiioners to put in a
representation before the Government and _ requiring the Govirn-
ment to dispose of the representation. The petitioners did
rriake the representation and the Government considered it but the
relief claimed' by the petitioners was denied. In accordance with B
the further· directions contained in the .order dated .December .19,
1979 this writ petition has now come on for consideration on its
merits.

The Central Reserve Police Force forms a part of the
Ministry of.Home Affairs in the Government of India, and it !fas a c
....
(./
Signals branch in which one-of the categories iS that of Radio
0

Operators Grade III (Naik). 'I'he petitioners say that Naik Radio
,Operators are appointed either by direct recruitment, in which
case . the candidate is required to be a Matriculate or his
equivalent, or by promotion from the rank of Constable, in which
case the Constable ·should · have passed the Radio Operators D
Grade III oourse. Originally, members of the Central Reserve
Police Force of the rank of Naik enjoyed the pay scale Rs.85-110,
and Naik Radio Operators were. given a· special pay of Rs. 30 in
view of . their special qualifications and the specialised nature of
their duties. ~y its order dated. April 23, 1970 the Central
Government. appointed the Third Pay Commission to make recom- E
mendations in regard to the structure of the emoluments and the
conditions of service of different classes . of Central Government , ·
employees.. The Commission submitted its final report to the
Ceptral Government on March, 31, 1973. Paragraph 30 of
Chapter 29 of Part I of. Vqlum~ 2 contains the recommendations
in respect of Radio. Mechanics in the Central R~serve. Police F
Force. It states :-.
'
' "30. Post of Radio Mechanic, G~ade I in the CRP
and Sub-inspector (Radio Mechanic) in the ~SF are on the
./
/

'

G
scale 'of Rs. !50·10-290-15-380, but the Diploma holders
are given the scale of Rs. 180-10-290-15-380. We
recommend for these posts the scale of Rs. 380-560· but the
Diploma holders working on these posts should be remune
rated on the scale of Rs. 425-700. Below this level, posts of H
Radio Mechanic, G.rade U ~nd . . - the
. . Radio
. .
Operators
. are 011
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983) 1 s.c.R.

A the scale of Rs.150-10-210 or on the scale of Rs. 125-3-131-
4-155 wi.th a special pay of Rs. 35 per month and we
recommend that these posts should be given the
scale of Rs. 330-480. For the posts of Radio Fitter on
the scale of Rs. 125-3-131-4-155 we recommend the scale of
Rs. 320-400,"
B

Admittedly, no reference has been made therein to Radio
Operators Grade 111.(Naik). Following the recommendations of the
Third Pay Commission the Central Government framed the Central

c
Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1973 which came into force on
January I, 1973. The petitioners exercised their option in favour of
' ..
the revised pay scales. They were paid a salary of Rs. 250 with a
special pay of Rs; 30 from January, 1975 for a few months, together
with arrears on that basis for the years 1973 and 1974. The petitio-
ners accepted the revised pay and special pay although, they say, it
fell short of the ·pay to which they were entitled. Subsequently, in
D April 1975, the petitioners were placed in the revised pay scale
Rs. 225-308 given to Naiks and the excess amount paid earlier to
them was sought to be recovered by deducting from future payments
of their salary.

E Aggrieved by the refixation of their pay and the deduction of •
the excess already paid, they · have filed the present writ
petition.

So far as .the deduction is concerned, this Court has already
F directed by its order dated December 19, 1979 that the Government
should restore to the petitioners the excess amount already recover-
ed from them. Nevertheless, it will be necessary to examine the
validity of the refixation of the salary _now paid to the petitioners
inasmuch as that question is relevant for the period commencing
from the date from which salary has been actually paid--on the
G refixed basis.

The question whether the petitioners have been properly placed
in ihe pay scale Rs. 225-308 must be examined, therefore, from two
H aspects;

1; Th~ir ~ll!ill! tq !IJ~ pay scale Rs, 260-430 and
. ti.. Airnilb v. UNION (Fathak, i.)

2. Alternatively, their claim to the pay of Rs. 250/- and the
A
> special pay of Rs. 30 paid to them before the refixation of their
salary.

On the first point, a few facts may be briefly stated.· On the
basis of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission the pay B
scales of all Central Government employees, including personnel in
the para-military. forces, were revised with effect from January 1,
l 1973. Under the original pay scales, Naik Radio Operators were
placed on the scale Rs.85-110 with a special pay of Rs. 30 in view of
their special qualifications and the specialised nature of their duties.
They were entitled to allowances calculated on the aggregate of their
c
basic pay· al)d special pay. The Commission prescribed a scale of
Rs. 225-308 for the post of Naik, but did not make any separate
recommendation in respect of the post of Radio Operator Grade IH
(Naik). Inasmuch. as before the revision of the pay scales the scale
of a Naik and Radio Operator Grade III (Naik) was the same, that
D
is to say, Rs. 85-110, the revised pay scale for the post of Radio
Operator Grade Ill (Naik) was raised to the same level .as that
. prescribed for the post of Naik, that is to say, Rs. 225-308, and in
view of their special qualifications and the specialised nature of their
duties Radio Operators Grade III (Naik) were given a· special pay of
km~. · E

The petitioners urge that posts in · other departments of _the
Central Government, for which the minimum qualification was the
Matriculation examination and an additional requirement of training,
carried the pay scale of Rs. 260-430 and since that requirement was
also the basis of appointments to the post of Radio Operators F
Grade III (Naik) they sho.uld also be held entitled to that pay scale..
Now the revised. pay has been given with effect from January I. 1973
and on that .date the qualification in the case of a Naik was tlie
Middle School examination, and it was only with effect from January
24, 1975 that the qualification was raised to the Matriculation
G
examination. As Naiks and Radio Operators Grade III (Naik)
bad been uniformly treated at par in the matter of that basic
qualification it is not open to the petitioners to base their claim with
reference to a qualification which did not exist on January l, 1973.
H
In support of their claim to the pay scale Rs. 260-430, the
petitioners have drawn our attention to the circumstance that the ·
'
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983] i s.c.il..
A. immediately next senior category, Radio Operators Grade II, carries
the revised scale Rs. 330-480 and, it is contended, the revised pay
scale in the case of Radio Operators Grade III should not be far
below. It is not for this Court, we think, to examine how far below
should be the revised pay . scale of the Radio Operators Grade
III. If the Government has prescribed a particular pay scale in
8 respect of them, all that the court .can do is to merely pronounce on
the validity of that fixation. In the ·event thlt the court finds that
the prescription is contrary to law it will strike" it down and direct
the Government to take a fresh decision i~ the matter. It is a very
different case from one where this Court has sought to prescr.ibe pay
scales in appeals directly preferred from an award of the Labour .
c Court dealing with such a matter. In the latter case, thi~ Court in
its appellate· jurisdiction can be regarded as enjoying all the jurisdic-
tion wQ.ich the Labour Court enjoys.. That is opt so in the present
case.

D We are satisfied that Radio Operators Grade III (Naik) have
to be considered substantially on the same basis as Naiks in the
Central Reserve Police Force, ·and it is because of their special ·
qualifications and of the specialised nature of their duties that they
have been' provided a special pay in additi~n, It may be mentioned·
that ever since 1975 Radio Operators Grade III (Naik) are selected'
E only from the rank of Constables on· the General Duty Side The
revised pay scale of Radio Operators of the rank of Head Constable
as well as Head Constables on General Duty is Rs. 260-350, with a
special pay of Rs. 40 to Head Constables (Radio Operators). This
post is the immediately next higher post above the rank of ·Naik,
and it is:apparent that there would be no justification of givin~ to the
petitioners, who are junior in rank, the pay scale Rs. 260-430.

The petitioners have also contended that they should be paid
at par with comparable Government employees on· the civil side. ·
This claim is refuted ,by the respondents who point out that the .
petitioners arc entided to certain benefits not available to the
G
others. Learned counsel for the respondents bas listed before us a
number of such benefits. It is pointed out that the petitioners
are entitled to casual leave for a peiiod of twenty days as against
casual leave for a period of twelve days for Government employees •
on the civil side, earned leave for a period of sixty days as against
H
. earned leave' for a period of thirty three days for Government
' employees on the civil side, and rent free accommodation or house.
-<. - • • • ~- ; )

s.L. AHMED v. UNION (Pathak, J.)

allowance at 10% of the salary in contrast to Government emp- A
> loyees on the civil side who are liable to l'ay 10% of the salary if
accommodation is provided.

We are not sa.tisfied that the petitioners are entitled to the pay
scale Rs. 260-430. ··
B
'
The second point requires us to consider the validity of the re-
fixation of the pay of the petitioners when they ,were receiving Rs. 250
with a special pay of Rs. 30. .According to .the recommendations of
the Third Pay Commission, the existing pay scale of a Government
servant drawing basic pay upto Rs. !Sbo 'per" m·onth was to be
augmented by an amount representing five .per cent of the basic pay c
subject to a.minimum of Rs. 15 and a maximum of Rs. 50. The
Government of India Memorandum -No. F. · 67/11/23/74-IC dated
May 17, 1974 directed that special pay was not fo be included'-in the
existing emoluments for the purpose of determining the accretion
where in addition· to the revised pay the Government servant was
to be given a special pay also. The revised pay actually paid to the 0
petitioners initially was computed in error inasmuch as when fixing
the pay in the revised . scale .the special pay, was taken into account·
for the purpose of computing the accretion. It, therefore, liecame
necessary to recompute the amount payable,to the peiitioners_ and
to reduce it to the level now paid to. them .. It has not been shown
to us that the basis adopted for. refixation of the .pay is. ·invalid.
.

In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed, but in the
circumstances there is no order as to costs. This will not affeci the
orderdated December 19, 1979 directing the Government to restore.
to the petitioners the excess :paid to them. ·earlier and subsequ'ently
recovered from them.

H.L.C. Petition .dismissed.

,_.-,.
•
" -".