SPA/851/2017
2025 Latest Caselaw 138 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

SPA/851/2017 on 6 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                         2025:UHC:3523-DB
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                  COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               SPA No. 851 of 2017
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Monika Pant, Advocate for the appellant.

2. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for respondent no. 1.

3. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.05.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1104 of 2017. Impugned judgment is extracted below:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present lis is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1575 of 2007 on 16.03.2017.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of judgment cited hereinabove. The respondents are directed to implement the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The arrears etc. shall be paid within a period of 12 weeks from today."

4. National Institute of Visually Handicapped has challenged the said judgment on the ground that the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 was wrongly decided in terms of judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1575 of 2007.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1575 of 2007 issue was entirely different, as the writ petitioner was claiming benefit of pay 2025:UHC:3523-DB revision as per 5th Pay Commission Report, from 01.01.1996, while the competent authority had given him benefit of pay revision from a later date, while in this case, writ petitioner (respondent no. 1) was seeking upgradation of his pay scale from `5000-8000 to `7450-11500 from due date.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the 6th Central Pay Commission report was accepted by the Central Government in respect of Central Government employees, however, the employees serving in National Institute of Visually Handicapped, were left out and their pay was not revised, which was unjust.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that writ petitioner (respondent no. 1 herein) was relying on the report of 6th Central Pay Commission, whereby pay scale of 'Foreman' was recommended to be revised to `7450- 11500, however, such recommendation was not accepted by the Central Government. Thus, he submits that learned Single Judge without considering as to whether report of 6th Central Pay Commission is binding upon the Government and whether a mandamus to grant the revised pay scale based on recommendation made by Pay Commission, can be issued or not, directed the Institute to give revised scale as per the report, w.e.f. 01.01.1996. He submits that pay revision of employees has financial implications, therefore courts are generally loathe in issuing such directions.

2025:UHC:3523-DB

8. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. Recommendation made by the Pay Commission is only advisory in nature and not binding upon the Government, Central or State.

9. Since the Central Government did not accept the recommendation of 6th Central Pay Commission as regards the Foreman serving in NIVH, therefore, the direction to pay the pay scale as per the report of the Pay Commission could not have been issued, unless there is some valid reason for doing so.

10. Even otherwise also, the reliance on judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1575 of 2007 is misplaced, as the question involved in the said case was entirely different.

11. In such view of the matter, the impugned judgment is set aside and the Special Appeal is Allowed. However, the writ petitioner (respondent no. 1 herein) shall be at liberty to make representation for revision of his pay scale, as per recommendation made by 6th Central Pay Commission, to the Competent Authority. If he makes such representation within two weeks from today, the competent authority shall examine the matter and take decision as per law, within four months thereafter.

(Ashish Naithani, .J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.) 06.05.2025 Navin

NAVEEN

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH

2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006d a82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001,

CHANDRA st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643 AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.05.08 11:10:15 -07'00'