Open iDraf
Chief Commissioner of Income-tax v. V.K. Gururaj

Chief Commissioner of Income-tax
V.K. Gururaj

(Supreme Court Of India)

Civil Appeal No. 2537-43 Of 1996 | 22-01-1996

K. Ramaswamy, J.

1. Office report shows that notice was issued to the respondents on 25.8.1993. Though it was served on respondent No. 2 on 14.9.1993 and on respondent No. 7 on 7.9.1993, they do not appear either in person or through counsel. Neither unserved envelopes nor A/D cards have been received in respect of respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6. Under these circumstances, notice to them must be deemed to have been served.

2. Leave granted.

3. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. The Government in O.M. No. F7 (52) EIII/78, dated May 5, 1979 have stated that special grant of pay of Rs. 35/- per month to the Upper Division Clerks in the non-secretariat administrative officer was provided. Out of the UDCs carrying the scale of Rs. 330-560/-, 10% of the posts were earmarked with special grant of pay of Rs. 35/- in the secretariat and other places and they were directed to handle cases of complex nature involving deep study and competence. For dealing with such cases certain officers have been promoted to that 10% posts specified among the UDCs in the secretariat as well as non-secretariat administrative offices. They were being paid @ Rs. 35/- per month as compensation for discharge of special duties. The respondents were not actually discharging those duties but being UDCs they claimed special pay of Rs. 35/-. The Tribunal in the impugned order following its earlier decision dated 9.10.1991 made in O.A. 394/90 allowed the petition and directed payment. We have directed the counsel to find out whether any appeal has been filed against the said order. It would appear that no appeal has been filed against the said order. However, it being a question of law and since the matter is a perennial problem applicable to several places, we are of the considered view that the failure to file an appeal in one case does not have the affect of following in all other cases. It is seen that payment of Rs. 35/- per month to UDCs discharging special duties of onerous nature, is personal pay so long as they discharge the same. Therefore. other UDCs who do not perform the special duties, though seniors, do not ipso facto get the same pay on the parity of equal pay due to juniors getting higher pay. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the Tribunal was wholly incorrect in directing payment to all the persons who did not discharge such duties assigned to the 10% special posts of UDCs carrying special pay Rs. 35/- per month.

4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

5. Appeal allowed.

Advocates List


For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List



Eq Citation

1996 (2) SCT 188 (SC)

(1996) 85 TAXMAN 344 (SC)

(1996) 1 SCR 841

(1996) 7 SCC 275

1996 IAD (SC) 980

(1996) 83 ELT 485 (SC)

JT 1996 (1) SC 709

1996 (1) SCALE 696

1996 (33) ATC 269

1996 (1) AD (SC) 980

(1996) 83 ELT 485

(1996) 1 SLR 773

1996 (2) SUPREME 17

1996 SCC (L&S) 579

1996 (1) CLR 433