State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Bhupinder Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service - punjab civil service (revised pay) rules - revision of pay scale of supervisor by iiird punjab pay commission by its report dated 1.1.1986 - on representation by respondents pointing a serious anomaly, anamoly committee fixed pay scale of supervisor in grade of rs. 2000-5500 w.e.f. 28.3.1989 - respondents claimed pay fixation w.e.f. 1.1..1986 by filing writ petition - allowed in view of ratio of decision in case of bhagirath ram v. state of punjab - appeal - dismissed by high court - plea of appellants that since scales of pay were enhanced prospectively, revised pay was payable w.e.f. 1.1.1986 notionally as held in case of ram murti and ors. v. state of punjab - validity - since higher revised pay scales granted prospectively on recommendations of iiird pay commission, respondents held entitled to revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 notionally for calculation of retrial benefits - however respondents not held entitled to be paid arrears of difference in pay scales from 1.1.1986 as claimed - [k. subba rao, c.j.,; j.c. shah,; j.m. shelat,; v. bhargava and; g.k. mitter, jj.] the legislative assembly for the union territory of pondicherry passed the pondicherry general sales tax act (10 of 1965) which was published on june 30, 1965. section 1(2) of the art provided, that it would come into force on such date as the pondicherry government may, by notification, appoint and s.., 2(1) provided that the madras general sales tax act, 1959, as in force in the state of madras immediately before the commencement of the pondicherry act, shall be extended to pondicherry subject to certain modifications, one of which related to the constitution of the appellate tribunal. the act also enacted a schedule, giving the description of goods, the point of levy 'and the rates of tax. the pondicherry government issued a notification on march 1, 1966, appointing april 1, 1966 as the date of commencement. prior to the issue of the notification, the madras legislature had amended the madras act and consequently it was the madras act as amended up to april 1, 1966 which was brought into force in pondicherry. when the act had come into force, the petitioner was served with a notice to register himself as a dealer and he thereupon filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the act. after the petition was filed, the pondicherry legislature passed the pondicherry general sales tax (amendment) act, 13 of 1966, whereby s. 1(2) of the principal act was amended to read that the latter act ,,shall come into force on the 1st day of april 1966", it was also provided that all taxes levied or collected and all proceedings taken and things done were to be deemed valid as if the principal act as amended had been in force at all material times. held : (per subba rao, c.j., shelat and mitter jj.) the act of 1965 was void and still-born and could not be revived by the amendment act of 1966. the pondicherry legislature not only adopted the madras act as it stood at the date when it passed the principal act, but in effect also enacted that if the madras legislature were to amend its act prior to the notification of its extension to pondicherry, it would be the amended act that would apply. the legislature at that stage could not anticipate that the madras act would not be amended nor could it predicate what amendments would be carried out or whether they would be of a sweeping character or whether they would be suitable in pondicherry. the result was that the pondicherry legislature accepted the amended act though, it was-not and could not be aware what the provisions of the amended. act would be. there was, in these circumstances, a total surrender in the matter of sales tax legislation by the pondicherry assembly in favour of the madras legislature. [660 d-g] the principal act was not saved for the reason that it contained certain provisions relating to the appellate tribunal and a schedule independent of the madras act. the core of a taxing statute is the charging section and the provisions relating to the levy of such tax- and defining the persons who are liable to pay the tax. if that core disappears, the renaming provisions have no efficacy [660 h] in re delhi laws act, 1912, etc. [1951] s.c.r, 747, explained and distinguished. raj narain singh v. the chairman, patna administration committee & anr. [1955] 1 s.c.r. 290; jotindranath gupta v. state of u.p. [1949-50] f.c.r. 595; empress v. burah 5 i.a., 177; the referendum case, [1919] ac. 935; hodge v. the queen, 9 app. cases 177, referred to. the amendment act was passed on the footing that there was in, existence a valid act; it was and was intended to be an amendment of the principal act. it could not be construed as an independent legislation and therefore it could not be said that the pondicherry legislature i re-enacted the principal act extending the madras act as amended up to april 1, 1966, to pondicherry. [662 e:e-g] deep chand v. state of u.p. [1959] supp. 2 s.c.r. 8 and mahendra lal v. state of u.p. [1963] supp. 1 s.c r. 912, referred to. per shah and bhargava, jj.. (dissenting) : the delegation of power by the pondicherry legislature to the pondicherry government was to the extent that the latter could either bring into force the madras act as itstood when the principal act was published or could, at its option, enforce, the madras act as subsequently amended by the madras legislature,, which would amount to giving it discretion to apply a future law to be passed by the madras legislature. [666 c-d] but even assuming that the principal act was bad for exsive delegation of powers when it was enacted and published, the subsequent amending act passed by the pondicherry legislature had the effect of bringing into force in pondicherry a valid act, under which proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioner were fully justified. [668 e] initially, when the principal act came into force in pondicherry with effect from 1st april, 1966, the amendments made by the madras legislature also became effective in pondicherry, because the pondicherry government notified that the principle act was to commence with effect from ist april, 1966; but, subsequently, when the amending act was passed by the pondicherry legislature, that legislature itself decided that the madras act which should come into force in the territory of pondicherry cherry should be the amended madras act, and by the retrospective operation of the amending act, the effect of any excessive delegation was, removed. [669 d-e; 670 d-e] deep chand v. the state of uttar pradesh and others, [1959]supp. 2 s.c.r. 8; mahendra lal jaini v. the state of uttar pradesh and others [1963] supp. 1 s.c.r. 912 and the state of south australia and another etc. v. the commonwealth and another, 65 c.l.r. 373; distinguished furthermore', there were some provisions in the principal act before its amendment which did not contain any element of delegation of le lative power and which must therefore be held to have betbeen valid from the beginning if the. principal act was, to some extent valid, there could be no to the pondicherry legislature amending it retrospectively so as to validatethose parts of it which might have been invalid on the ground of excessive delegation of legislative power. [671 f, g] - 1500-2540. respondents made a representation pointing that a serious anomaly had arisen on account of failure to prescribe a proper pay scale for the said post. munjral, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that keeping in mind the recommendations of the iiird punjab pay commission, the department of administrative reforms vide letter dated 26.10.1988 recommended restructuring of the departments and granting of higher revised scales of pay and consequently the scales of pay of skilled and semi-skilled staff of the department of transport were enhanced prospectively w. that on 1.1.1986 the state pay commission recommended higher pay which the appellant accepted but wrongly fitted them in the grade of rs.s.h. kapadia, j. 1. the short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is - whether the revised pay-scales of skilled and semi-skilled staff working in the printing and stationary department were applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986 (when iiird punjab pay commission gave its report) or w.e.f. 14.2.1989 when the state government issued its notification implementing the recommendations of the pay commission.2. the facts lie within narrow compass. respondents herein joined the service as assistants before 1978. subsequently, they were promoted as supervisors. on 1.1.1986, report was submitted by the iiird punjab pay commission which was accepted by the government enacting punjab civil service (revised pay) rules under which the pay of supervisor was fixed in the grade of rs. 1500-2540. respondents made a representation pointing that a serious anomaly had arisen on account of failure to prescribe a proper pay scale for the said post. the said matter was referred to anomaly committee. realising its mistake, the government fixed the pay scale of the supervisor in the grade of rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 28.3.1989. aggrieved, respondents herein filed civil writ petition no. 13 83 of 1990 in the high court claiming pay fixation w.e.f. 1.1.1986. by judgment and order dated 21.4.1998, the learned single judge allowed the writ petition in view of the earlier judgment of the division bench of the high court in the case of bhagirath ram v. state of punjab dated 26.7.1994 in civil writ petition no. 6778 of 1993, directing payment w.e.f. 1.1.1986. the appellant herein carried the matter in appeal before the division bench of the high court. following the above judgment in the case of bhagirath ram (supra), the - division bench dismissed the writ appeal, however, directed the appellant herein to pay arrears of salary for 3 years and 2 months prior to the date of filing of writ petition. hence, this civil appeal.3. shri h.s. munjral, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that keeping in mind the recommendations of the iiird punjab pay commission, the department of administrative reforms vide letter dated 26.10.1988 recommended restructuring of the departments and granting of higher revised scales of pay and consequently the scales of pay of skilled and semi-skilled staff of the department of transport were enhanced prospectively w.e.f. 3.11.1989. similarly the scales of pay of skilled and semi-skilled staff of printing and stationary department were enhanced prospectively. it was urged that fixation of the date for grant of revised pay scales is within the discretion of the government it was urged that revised pay was payable w.e.f. 1.1.1986, notionally as held by the division bench of the high court in the case of ram murti and ors. v. state of punjab dated 13.2.1996.4. per contra, shri k.g. bhagat, learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the respondents had joined the service as assistants before 1978; that they were subsequently promoted to the post of supervisors; that on 1.1.1986 the state pay commission recommended higher pay which the appellant accepted but wrongly fitted them in the grade of rs. 1500-2540 which created an anomaly as the assistants were fitted in the grade of rs. 1800-3200; that the appellant realized its mistake and fitted the supervisors in the higher grade of rs. 2000-3500. having accepted the anomaly, it was urged, the respondents were entitled to the grade of rs. 2000 - 3500 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and not from 14.2.1989. reliance in- this connection was placed on the judgment of the high court in the case of bhagirath ram (supra).5. we find merits in this civil appeal. keeping in mind the recommendations of the iiird punjab pay commission to rationalize recruitment, qualifications, designation and restructuring of the cadres by amendments to the service regulations, the administrative department made proposals on 26.10.1988. in the light of these recommendations, certain departments came in for restructuring and consequently, higher revised scales came to be granted prospectively. accordingly, scales of pay of semi skilled and skilled staff of the transport department, printing and stationary department herein were enhanced w.e.f. 14.2.1989, which circumstance did not exist in the case of bhagirath ram (supra). this factual aspect has been lost sight of by the high court in the present case. in the case of ram murti (supra) the petitioners who were employees of punjab roadways prayed for directions to grant them revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 3.11.1989. it was held that on 3.11.1988 the scales stood revised, and consequently, the appellants were entitled to revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986, notionally, and they were not to be paid the arrears of the difference of pay scales but they would be entitled to all consequential benefits. in our view, learned advocate for the appellant is right in his submission that the facts of the present case are covered by the judgment of the high court in the case of ram murti (supra), special leave petition against which has been dismissed. accordingly, we hold that the respondents herein would be entitled to revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986, notionally for calculation of retiral benefits but they will not be paid arrears of the difference in the pay scales from that date, as claimed.6. for above reasons, this civil appeal stands allowed, with no order as to costs.