A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case pertains to the applicability of Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002, specifically on the stepping up of pay for senior government employees when their juniors are drawing higher salaries. The appellants sought parity in pay, arguing that juniors were granted higher salaries due to their ad hoc services being counted under Senior Scale/Selection Grade Pay, which the appellants contended violated the principle of equality. However, the Supreme Court held that Rule 21 was inapplicable as the pay anomaly was not a direct result of the application of the rule but stemmed from special considerations granted to juniors for their ad hoc services. The Court further emphasized equity, stating that the appellants, having not rendered the same services, could not claim such benefits.

Keywords: Rule 21, Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002, Stepping up of pay, Career Advancement Scheme, Ad hoc services.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Maheshkumar Chandulal Patel & Anr. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

ii) Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 9059 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date
14 August 2024

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

vi) Author
Justice Vikram Nath

vii) Citation
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 472 : 2024 INSC 608

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any)
None.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Service Law, Administrative Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arose when senior government employees, recruited through the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC), found themselves drawing lower salaries than their juniors. These juniors, earlier employed as ad hoc lecturers, were granted benefits of Senior Scale/Selection Grade Pay due to government resolutions that considered their ad hoc services. The appellants claimed this disparity violated principles of equality and sought application of Rule 21 to step up their pay. The High Court’s Single Judge allowed the petition but was reversed by the Division Bench. The appellants approached the Supreme Court, seeking reinstatement of the Single Judge’s decision.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Background: The appellants, directly recruited as Assistant Professors through GPSC, were placed on lower pay scales than their juniors, who were earlier employed as ad hoc lecturers and subsequently regularized.
2. Government Resolution: Resolutions allowed ad hoc services to count for Senior Scale/Selection Grade Pay, leading to higher salaries for these juniors.
3. Contention: Appellants argued Rule 21 should be applied to correct the anomaly, ensuring pay parity between senior and junior employees.
4. Court Decisions: The Single Judge of the High Court favored the appellants, directing stepping up of pay. The Division Bench, however, reversed this, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Does Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 apply to rectify the anomaly in pay between senior employees and their juniors?
ii) Can ad hoc services be considered for parity in pay under the principle of equity?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsel for the appellants argued that the disparity violated Rule 21, as the junior employees’ salaries were higher despite them belonging to the same cadre.
ii) The appellants emphasized that the government resolutions treating Career Advancement Scheme as promotions necessitated application of Rule 21.
iii) It was argued that granting such benefits to juniors would demoralize seniors, undermining the recruitment process through GPSC.
iv) The appellants cited precedents like Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy and Gurcharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab SEB, supporting stepping up of pay for seniors.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The respondents argued that Rule 21 was inapplicable as the pay anomaly was not a direct result of its application.
ii) They emphasized that ad hoc services, which the juniors had rendered, justified the benefits granted under the government resolutions.
iii) The respondents cited judgments like Union of India v. R. Swaminathan and Union of India v. M. Suryanarayana Rao, where stepping up was denied in similar circumstances.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Rule 21 applies strictly where anomalies arise directly due to its application. The appellants’ claims were dismissed as the anomaly resulted from ad hoc services granted to juniors, which did not qualify for correction under Rule 21.

b. Obiter Dicta (If Any)

The Court highlighted the principle of equity, stating that benefits cannot be claimed for services not rendered.

c. Guidelines (If Any)

• Rule 21 should be applied strictly, adhering to the conditions outlined in the rule.
• Benefits granted for ad hoc services cannot be grounds for stepping up unless anomalies arise under Rule 21.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores the importance of strict adherence to rules like Rule 21. It protects the integrity of service regulations by ensuring benefits are granted equitably and based on actual service rendered. While the appellants raised valid concerns, the Court’s emphasis on statutory compliance reflects judicial prudence.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy [(2022) 6 SCC 183]
2. Gurcharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab SEB [(2009) 3 SCC 94]
3. Union of India v. R. Swaminathan [(1997) 7 SCC 690]
4. Union of India v. M. Suryanarayana Rao [(1998) 6 SCC 400]

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002
2. UGC Regulations, 1998