Employee Of State Road Transport Corporation Entitled To Pay Revision And Benefits Of 5th And 6th Pay Commissions: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Background

Suraj Parkash, employed by the Jammu & Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation (SRTC), sought the release of higher pay grades in line with SRO 18 (1998) and SRO 93 (2009), which implemented the recommendations of the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions. He contended that other state corporations had adopted these revisions, but his pay scale remained stagnant. Although the petitioner was due for a promotion to the position of Assistant Work Manager, he had not received this promotion for 25 years. The petitioner retired in 2017 and sought to limit his claim to the pay fixation benefits under SROs 18 and 93, which had been denied, while benefits under the 7th Pay Commission were already extended.

Arguments

The petitioner argued that SROs 18 and 93, which provided for pay revisions following the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions, were not applied to him, despite being adopted by other state corporations. He argued that since he was granted pension and benefits under the 7th Pay Commission, he should also receive arrears for the prior revisions. The petitioner further contended that the refusal to extend these benefits was arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly since similarly situated employees in other state corporations had received them.

On the other hand, the SRTC argued that the petitioner, having opted to be governed by the corporation's staff rules, was not entitled to the benefits of the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions. The corporation contended that it had its own pay structure, which was governed by specific rules and subject to financial considerations. The respondents also argued that the claims raised by the petitioner were devoid of any legal basis and had been rejected by the corporation's internal review, evidenced by an order dated 24 April 2018.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court considered that the petitioner had already been granted benefits under the 7th Pay Commission. The court emphasized that pensionary benefits and 7th Pay Commission revisions are typically granted to government employees holding pensionable posts. Since the petitioner had been treated as a government employee for these purposes, the court found no justification for withholding the benefits of the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions, which had been implemented through SROs 18 and 93. The court also highlighted the petitioner's consistent service history, including his employment as a Senior Driver and later a Vehicle Inspector, which entitled him to the revised pay scales. His superannuation did not negate his right to these pay revisions.

The court referred to past decisions, including All J&K Workers Union, State Road Transport Corporation v. State of J&K & Ors (2013), where employees of the SRTC were held entitled to exercise an option for pay benefits at par with government employees. The judgment directed the authorities to offer employees the option to adopt revised pay rules, emphasizing that retired employees and even deceased employees' legal heirs were entitled to exercise the option and receive benefits. In the present case, the petitioner had been treated as a government employee for pension purposes, and his claims to the benefits under the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions could not be denied merely because he was no longer in active service. Additionally, the court underscored the principle that the state and its corporations must act fairly as model employers. The respondents' refusal to extend the pay revisions to the petitioner, when similarly placed employees had been granted the benefits, was arbitrary and violated principles of fairness.

Finally, the court declared the rejection order dated 24 April 2018, which denied the petitioner's claim, as “inconsequential and ineffective.” The court directed the respondents to conduct a fresh review of the petitioner's entitlements and to place him in the appropriate pay scale as per SROs 18 and 93. It further instructed the authorities to pay all differential arrears owed to the petitioner within eight weeks. Thus, the court quashed the rejection order issued by the respondent corporation, declaring it void. It directed the respondents to place the petitioner in the revised pay scales as per SRO 18 of 1998 and SRO 93 of 2009, and to pay the differential arrears within eight weeks.

Decided on: 15-10-2024

Citation: SWP No. 28/2016; CM No. 1616/2022; IA No. 1/2016.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Wazir, Mr. Rajat Sudan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. R. Koul

Click Here To Read/Download The Order