The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Adminsitration) Bangalore v. V.k. Gururaj And Ors

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ADMINISTRATION), BANGALORE v. V.K. GURURAJ AND ORS. JANUARY 22, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Service Law : Civil Services-Special pay to UDCs in non-secretariat administrative C offices-JO% of posts earmarked for giant of special p~Those UDCs directed to handle cases of complex nature involving deep study and com-petence-<Jrant of special pay to compensate discharge of such duties-{]DCs not actually discharging such special duties-Claiming special pay-Central Administrative Tribunal directing payment-Held; UDCs who do not perfonn the special duties, though seniors, not entitled to get the special pay. D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2537-43 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.92 of the Central Ad-ministrative Tribunal, Bangalore in 0.A. Nos. 190-94, 204, 217 of 1991. K. Lahiri, T.V. Ratnam and S.N. Terdol for the Appellant. The following Order of the Court was delivered : 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 envelops nor ND cards have been received in respect of respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6. Under these circumstan-ces, notice to them must be deemed to have been served. Leave granted. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. The Government in O.M. No. F7(52) E IIIn8, dated May 5, 1979 have stated that special grant of pay of Rs. 35 per month to the Upper Division Clerks in the non-H 841 A secretariat administrative offices 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 direc.ted to handle cases of complex nature involving deep study and competence. For dealing with such cases certain officers have been B [promoted to that 10% posts specified among the UDCs ][in ][the secretariat ]as well as non-secretariat administrative officers. 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 0.A. 394/90 allowed C 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 of perennial problem applicable to several places, we are of the considered view that the failure D to file an appeal in one case does not have the effect of following in all other cases. It is seen that payment of Rs. 35 per month to UDCs discharg-ing 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 posity of equal pay due to juniors getting higher pay. Under these cir-E cumstances 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 of Rs. 35 per month. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. F Appeal allowed. G.N. 841 DISCLAIMER The translated Judgment in vernacular language is meant for the restricted use of the litigant to understand it in his/her language and may not be used for any other purpose. For all practical and official purposes, the English version of the Judgment shall be authentic and shall hold the field for the purpose of execution and implementation. XXXX OTP ADA) DAD) (HDA (ofynae DOIN), BO 2B )0d VK. Dmmore’s HBchn w 3008 22,1996 |K. crxpaPcao Scion GCDS, Dscdaxnr De 25: LOE SOshev - YSHOALET 88a SPorcdciren SI) PIS UD(OBS BESO - 10 80 PHD (SHS BESO DowrhH Seravoy - SASOSCADISO BAD PqOS” SBS SOSR Bardo SY) EVOD DOZPOPOd 2)UDCed eB80S2 OD — EVHOESDDO DOceP 09D (GBSTITPQD) OBC B~ UDCen 3%DE ©9€0508(SBSMDD DOB05S0 GLH — (GBSSIP)FNLDabiSo - BDoGD eT8o0IS Booe 0330 EBS(Bar5O - N6abo; (OBS DDO.B05) UDC ed, SNAG 02053) E, (SBE FESOPOSH IE ochen SD DAS 200 OSS HBG: HOS 225 Bo. 2537-43 / 1996. O.A.doat 190-94, 204, 217/1991 dot Boker SoS , BQ 18.5.92 re ODIO 800) swScin¢ DOG. K. e858, T.V. 580 HB0t0 S.N. BES, odyeowrt S6MS. SS Good)Se 80h oP BADDAoB:| 25.8.1993 SAS G8rtho® S&x wd dchakosO sored YasSPHWOG. BB HBarG Bo.2 8 14.9.1993 BAS MSckno HBr 80.7 § 7.9.1BOS 6 BSI 38, ww S8isorre Sor ayrcharG oxo wat sestio HBO Sows 1, 3 H0& 6 56H woHotiaka DoH eo Sar A/D swen wodSSt.Se VOdHood®, P68 SOx QQNewry HGNBow 0949408 40224 BADDBoB. Spin wsyenmt 50% arscharG arisen Darin. VSH6a Sorrerckoren SPA) ads? wiO% Sok 6.35 PMS BSio garodso 5, 1979 888 O.M. 30.F7(52) E III/78 Sot Gebeé0 S08. S°.330-56038 ei) UDC S, 10 edo Box SDaroco, 2bS5 Grom? r.35 GasBSSOS Seronowt Mbdcdo SBS wiradodo OS Spr&X 08sScearso No Sxnox DdScwrodmAS wOD wBBour%. stndoDONGONRNS SoS MH whsrtho®H SMarodosD UDC o&8 dren,PA VEGA OBVVBH HHSQGBoNS 10 wo BxXpok HX) eo)SDomPd. HSS Den ARSGodSomwh® arP68 SoH bw.35 Mss SSDOI. (BaD aPOY8 8 At&hoxo MWBodo St, se) UDC en SSKsrt 6.35 Gas SSSo Sows,O.A. 394/90 Sot 8 9.10.1991 WH Bd SSppe3 DQ) GMNGOD Bends DarPmMo)SS® BQN XD ONDWBOSDM BBBoDOB. % GSOH) HVBSSorve HBP ode agen Hadha&orBeDWMS ard shin Drcarad sBBorw4) HpVSSorv Dero senTPAD BADACBSD Senswong, a WODSHS WS) SHSOS’, Ss DQako orHBSro%H SHB TS. VXoxXp sraeB, aS SS os 5 mrpen BadKoS SHorOD) Eos oxhHBon Gerard) SOA GoD Shen erAmar in. SONS GNios ASsGo8 UDCoH Sok Srarahben 35 Bdodo, wth 08 VsGONS0S SSH ABI BESO OD SeovboH. wothhdo, Has Dox. M6080.985 UDC en, d2cd% wowdiy8S, aOAS BSNO OHODSOS KrHrsSirs SSSo OS EPBIASS a8 SSDPD) SPoSt. Ss HOSHS” Sok Sr.338508, UDC o& 10 wo Gas MBxpok Stronohd DAthoxo NSsPOSES BDODPOD Ba055 SSBosSho GPSrr HBSS Sea erOxo SSxoMDEsorP Vajen OLHMBosaaSA. poye Authenticated/vetted by:Ritu Translator DISCLAIMER: The translated judgement in vernacularlanguage is meant for the restricted use of the litigant tounderstand it in his/ her language and may not be usedfor any other purpose. For all practical and officialpurposes, the English version of the judgement shall beauthentic and shall hold the field for the purpose ofexecution and implementation. This judgment has been translated using AI Tool – SUVAS.===================================