Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal vs R. Jaiswal

Alok Aradhe, J.—This appeal is by the defendant.

This Court vide order dated 10-8-2011 had admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:--

(1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in granting decree in favour of plaintiff as prayed in the civil suit determining his right to get two advance increments even on fixation of pay in subsequent pay revisions ?

(2) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified to decide the appeal on the issues not framed by the trial Court without giving an opportunity to lead evidence and the finding recorded by it is not perverse ?

The facts, giving rise to filing of the appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent was appointed on the post of Associate Professor in the appellant institute vide order dated 16-12-1985 in the pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2000. The respondent prior to joining service in the appellant institute was working on the post of reader in Dibrugarh University and was getting the salary of Rs. 1620/- per month. The respondent submitted a representation and sought the benefit of grant of two advance increments so as to protect his pay. The appellant institute vide order dated 9-1-1986 sanctioned two advance increments in the then existing pay-scale of the Associate Professor in order to protect the basic salary of the respondent of Rs. 1620/- per month. The respondent joined the service in the appellant institute w.e.f. 1-2-1986.

The pay-scale of the faculty members of the appellant institute was decided to be revised in terms of revised pay structure scheme as approved by the Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of India. Accordingly, vide order dated 15-1-1992 options were invited from the faculty members for adopting the revised pay-scale, which was made to be effective from 1-1-1986. All the faculty members including the respondent opted for revised pay-scale in the prescribed form in terms of revised pay structure scheme. The existing pay scale of Rs. 1500-2000 of the post of Associate Professor was revised to Rs. 4,000-6,300/-. The pay of respondent was fixed at Rs. 4,500/- per month which was higher to the pay which he was getting prior to revision, i.e., Rs. 3698/-. However, the respondent claimed the benefit of two advance increments in the revised pay-scale on the ground that it was made effective with effect from 1-1-1986. The representation submitted by the respondent for grant of two advance increments in the revised pay scale was rejected by the Competent Authority. The respondent thereupon filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as well as for grant of arrears of salary.

The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21-4-1997 dismissed the suit preferred by the respondent. The Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 27-8-1998 reversed the decree of the trial Court and allowed the claim of the respondent for grant of two advance increments as well as arrears of salary. The Appellate Court held that vide order 9-1-1986 two advance increments were sanctioned to the respondent, therefore, the respondent is entitled to two advance increments in the revised pay-scale. It was further held that the plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs. 24,000/- for a period from 1-2-1986 to 30-2-1992 on account of arrears of salary. Accordingly, the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit of the respondent plaintiff was decreed.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the conditions of employment cannot be created by the Court by its order. The order passed by the Appellate Court is palpably erroneous. The respondent was not entitled to the benefit of two increments in the revised pay scale. The Appellate Court ought to have appreciated that the benefit of two advance increments was granted to the respondent only to protect his basic salary. It was further submitted that from the order sanctioning two advance increments to the respondent it could not be inferred that two advance increments are to be granted on pay revision under the revised pay structure scheme. The pay of respondent was fixed at Rs. 4,500/- per month which was higher than the pay which he was getting prior to revision, i.e., Rs. 3,698/- and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to two advance increments. It is farther submitted that the judgment passed by the Appellate Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. R.K. Chaturvedi and Another, In support of his contentions learned Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in M. Raja Vs. CEERI Educational Society Pilani and Another,

On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that increments and revision of pay scale are two distinct concepts in service law. It is submitted that increment is an increase or addition on a fixed scale whereas in case of revision, the pay scale is revised, which may incidentally result into increment. It is further submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court is perfectly just and legal and does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of power u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of her submissions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decision in State of Kerala and Another Vs. P.V. Neelakandan Nair and Others,

I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The respondent was appointed on the post of Associate Professor in the appellant institute vide order dated 16-12-1985 in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2000. Thereafter the respondent submitted the representation on 24-12-1985, in which it was stated that two advance increments be granted to the petitioner and his basic pay be fixed at Rs. 1620/- in the cadre of Associate Professor. Thereupon vide order dated 9-1-1986, the respondent was informed that two advance increments shall be sanctioned fixing his salary at Rs. 1620/-. Thereafter the petitioner opted for revision of pay under the revised pay structure scheme. From perusal of pay statement of the respondent it is apparent that increments have been added to his salary. It is also relevant to mention here that the benefit of two advance increments in the revised pay was not the subject matter of the contract between the parties. Therefore, even though the respondent had acquired the status under the Statutory Rules, after his pay was revised on his own option under the revised pay structure scheme, he cannot claim grant of two advance increments. Under the aforesaid scheme, salary of the respondent was fixed at Rs. 4,500/- which was higher than the salary which he was drawing prior to fixation under the fixation of pay structure scheme. The benefit of two advance increments was granted to the respondent for a limited purpose, i.e., with a view to extend the benefit of pay protection.

For the aforementioned reasons, the first substantial question of law is answered in the negative and in favour of the appellant. In order to elucidate the controversy involved in the case, the Appellate Court had formulated the issue. It is not the case of the appellant that the appellant wanted to adduce any additional evidence in this regard. Accordingly, it is held that second substantial question of law in fact does not arise for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.