Risal Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
1987 Latest Caselaw 270 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ranganathan, J.

(1) We have heard both the counsel. As the point in issue is very short, we issue Rule D.B. and proceed to dispose of the writ petition finally.

(2) The petitioner was working as an Assistant Chief Accountant in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (M.C.D.) He was in the pay scale of Rs. 350-900. The Third Pay Commission had recommended a revised scale of pay ofRs. 840-1200 to all Accounts Officers who, before the revision, were on two different scales of pay. namely Rs. 350-900 and Rs. 590-900. This is quite clear from para 110 of part Ii of Volume Ii of the report of the Third PayCommission, (Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit).

(3) The M.C.D. adopted the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. However, the pay scale of the petitioner (and other Assistant ChiefAccountants) was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs. 650-1200. The petitioner and the others claimed that this was not correct and made a representation that they were entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 840-1200 with effect from 1-1-1973.(It may be mentioned here that, so far as the petitioner is concerned, since he was appointed as an Assistant Chief Accountant only from 18-5-1973' the revision in his case can only be with effect from 18-5-1973). The representations made by the petitioners are stated to have been accepted by the EstablishmentBoard, the Commissioner, a Sub-Committe. constituted by the Corporation the Standing Committee of the Corporation and finally by a resolution of the Corporation dated 28-11-1982. This resolution of the Corporation reads : "RESOLVEDthat, as recommended by the Standing Committee vide its resolution 570 dated 3-11-1973, the scale of pay for the post of Assistant Chief Accountant is revised from Rs. 650-1200 to Rs 840-1200with effect from 1-1-1973."

It appears, however, that effect has not been given to this resolution of theM.C.D. That is the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition.

(4) The reply of the respondents is that, though the Commissioner had himself recommended the revision of the scales of this category of officers as above-mentioned at an earlier stages, he had again examined the matter and pointed out to the Standing Committee certain difficulties in giving effect to the revision. Hence, before implementing the resolution of the Corporation dated 28-11-1983, he referred the matter to the Lt. Governor of Delhi According to the respondents the Lt. Governor has nut sent his approval or disapproval and this is the reason why the resolution remains unimplemented.

(5) We are unable to accept the stand taken by the respondents. Once theCorporation has passed a resolution raising the pay scales of the Assistant Chief Accountants, we are unable to see any provision in the M.C.D. Act which permits the authorities to refuse to implement the resolution in question The statutory provisions are clear that the M.C.D. is the authority competent to revise the pay scales and that this can be done by a resolution passed by theCorporation (vide sections 78 and 98).

(6) Shri Agnani, appearing on behalf of the Corporation relies on the provisions contained in Section 487(3) of the above Act. He submits that since there was a difference of opinion between the Corporation and the Commissioner of the M.CD., this was referred to the Lt. Governor and until advice is given by the Lt. Governor the resolution of the Corporation could not be acted upon Section 487 consists of three sub-sections. The first two sub-sections detail the circumstances in which the Central Government (whose powers have been delegated to the Lt. Governor) can issue directions to the M.C.D. and these subsections have no relevance here. Sub-section (3) only states that if any difference of opinion should arise as to what is a "question of policy" referred to in subsection (2) the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final, Hence that sub-section also has no relevance here. But, even assuming that the interpretation placed by the learned counsel is correct, all that section 487(3) lays down is that the instructions of the Central Government on a policy question shall be final. In the present case, the Corporation's resolution was passed as early as 1983 and the reference by the Commissioner was made as early as 1984.He decision has been taken or instructions issued by the Central Government or its delegate that the resolution should not be implemented. Section 487(3) therefore does not stand in the way of implementation of the resolution dated28-11-1983.

(7) It does not also appear to be correct to say that the Lt. Governor has not replied to the reference made by the Commissioner, lt is common ground that on 29-4-1985 a letter was addressed to the Commissioner by the DelhiAdministration. This was with reference to his note on the subject presently under discussion and it says unequivocally that the resolution of the Corporation dated 28-11-1983 should be acted upon. In reply to this letter, the Commissioner wrote again on 27-5-85 to the Secretary to the Delhi Administration in the concerned department reiterating his earlier views on anomalies and requesting that the matter "may be actually reconsidered keeping in view theCommissioner's report to the Standing Committee and that the decision (by theCorporation) had been taken on a private member's resolution without touching on the points brought out in the Commissioner's letter". In reply to this, a letter was sent by the Delhi Administration on 31-3-1986 reiterating the decision conveyed in the letter dated 29-4-1985. In tact, the petitioners have annexed (as annexure P-6) a further letter addressed by the Delhi Administration on 21-11-1985 to the Commissioner conveying :- "THE approval of the Lt. Governor, Delhi to the revision of the pay scale of the post of the Assistant Chief Accountant in the M.C.D.from Rs. 650-1200 to Rs. 840-1200 with effect from 1-1-1973 as recommended by the 3rd Pay Commission an also resolved by theM.C.D. in its resolution no. 701 dated 28-11-1973."

The respondents do not admit that such a letter has been received by them.

(8) Even leaving the letter dated 21-11-1985 out of consideration, the correspondence above referred to clearly shows that the Delhi Administration has conveyed its approval to the resolution passed by the Corporation on 28-11-73.Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the Lt. Governor has not considered his decision on the reference made by the Commissioner, but he has not been able to show to us that these letters were written without properauthority. Subsequent to the letter dated 31-3-1986 the Commissioner does not appear to have taken up the matter further with the Administration by pointing out that the letters had been sent without placing the matter before the Lt.Governor. In the circumstances we are satisfied that the resolution of theM.C.D. had, in fact, been approved on the reference made by the Commissioner.

(9) Our conclusion that the revision of the pay scales of the Assistant Chief Accounts to Rs. 840-1200 cannot but be implemented is also clear from the following ciecumstances. The Fourth Pay Commission effected certain further revisions in the pay scales of the officers of the Govt. of India and had prescribed a pay scale of Rs. 2375-3500 for persons whose earlier pay scale was Rs.840-1200. The recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission were approved by the Corporation by a resolution dated 24-2-1987. The respondents in the reply affidavit admit that the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission have been implemented with effect from 1-1-1986. From that date, the AssistantChief Accountants are being paid salary in the scale of Rs. 2375-3500. It will be appreciated that unless on a revision of the pay scales in consequence of the Third Pay Commission's recommendations the pay to scale of the AssistantChief Accountants had been changed to Rs. 840-1200, they could not be placed on the pay scale of Rs. 2375-3500 with effect from 1-1-1986. It will, indeed,be a great anomaly if the pay scale of the petitioners since 1986 have been revised on the basis of their earlier scale of Rs. 840-1200 if, in fact, their earlier payscales had been raised only to Rs. 650-1200, as alleged by the respondents had that been so the Commissioner would have taken up the matter again with theLt. Governor and pointed out that the proposed revision of 1986 was not correct since petitioner (and other Assistant. Chief Accountants) were only in the scale of Rs. 650-1200 and that on the earlier proposal for revising their scales to Rs. 840-1200, the approval by the Corporation was still the subject matter of a reference which was pending with the Lt. Governor. No. such objection has been taken and the Corporation's resolution implementing the Fourth Pay Commission's recommendations on the basis above-mentioned,has become final and has also been implemented. There is therefore no doubt that the revision of the pay scales of the petitioner (and other assistant ChiefAccountants) to Rs. 840-1200 stands approved impliedly. Both the resolutions of the Corporation were to be implemented; the resolution dated 28-11-1983should therefore be implemented without any further delay.

(10) We, therefore, allow the writ petition and direct the respondents torevise the pay scales of the petitioner (and other Assistant Chief Accountants)and place them in the scale of Rs. 840-1200 from 1-1-1973. The respondents are directed to give effect to the revision and pay the petitioner (and others) the arrears of their salary for the period from 1973 to 1986 in accordance with such revision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

(11) The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner is entitled to his costs, Rs. 1,000.00.