Supreme Court of India
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ADMINSITRATION) BANGALORE versus V.K. GURURAJ AND ORS.
- Decided
- 22 January 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] 1 S.C.R. 841 · 1996 INSC 113
- Also cited as
- (1996) 7 SCC 275
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.
- DR. SUNIL KUMAR SAMBHUDAYAL GUPTA AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. versus MANJU JAIN. & ORS.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
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 circumstances, notice to them must be deemed to have been served.
p. 841, margin F
Leave granted.
p. 841, margin G
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 nonsecretariat 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 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 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 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 discharging 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 circumstances 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.
pp. 841–842, margin G
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.
p. 842, margin E