1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S).  2011 OF 2009

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                          Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS A. RAYER & ORS.                                Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has  strenuously  canvassed  the  position  that  a classification  between  the  matriculate  and non-matriculate  in  the  matter  of  pay  fixation  is permissible.  Our reference is also invited to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Mysore Vs. P. Narasinga Rao, reported in AIR 1968 SC 349. 2.  We have no quarrel with the above proposition. The  question  before  us  is  not  of  classification between the matriculate and non-matriculate.  We are only  invited  to  go  into  the  correctness  of  the Judgment passed by the High Court.  Both the Tribunal and the High Court have taken a view that the Anomaly Committee, have made a recommendation to treat the

2

Police Constables in Andaman & Nicobar Islands at par with Delhi.  The Anomaly Committee itself has been set up by the Government.  No doubt, the decision of the Anomaly Committee is not  per se  binding on the Government,  as  correctly  canvassed  by  the  learned counsel,  placing  reliance  on  the  judgment  of  this Court in Union of India Vs. Arjun Jyoti Kundu & Ors., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 472.  But the question is whether this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under  Article 136  of the  Constitution of  India to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Central Administrative  Tribunal  and  the  High  Court  on  the implementation of the report of the Anomaly Committee in the matter of extension of same pay scale of Delhi Police  Constables  to  the  constables  of  Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. 3. In  our  considered  view,  we  do  not  find  any justifiable ground to exercise our jurisdiction under Article  136  of  the  Constitution  of  India.   The appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed. 4. In the order dated 28.03.2005 the High Court of Calcutta  had, in  its Circuit  Bench at  Port Blair, imposed a default cost at the rate of 8% per annum as a condition for stay of operation of the Judgment. Now that we have passed the final orders in exercise of our discretionary and equitable jurisdiction, we are of the view that the order on payment of interest by way of costs from 01.01.1996 needs to be vacated. Ordered accordingly. 5. However,  we  make  it  clear  that  in  case  the arrears  are  not  paid  to  the  incumbents  concerned within a period of six months from today, the order on costs by the High Court would stand revived.

3

6. It  is  further  made  clear  that  no  further extension  of  time  will  be  granted  for  the  said purpose since we have granted a maximum period, as prayed  for,  despite  the  strong  opposition  of  the learned counsel for the respondents.

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ AMITAVA ROY ]  

New Delhi; November 24, 2017.

4

ITEM NO.55               COURT NO.5               SECTION XVI                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal  No(s).  2011 of 2009 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS A. RAYER & ORS.                                   Respondent(s) Date : 24-11-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Adv.  

Mr. K. V. Jagdishvaran, Adv.                       Ms. G. Indira, AOR                     For Respondent(s) Dr. Jose P. Verghese, Adv.  

Mr. Nebil Nizar, Adv.  Mr. Gireesh Kumar, Adv.  

                   Mr. Ranjith K. C., AOR Dr. M. P. Raju, Adv.  Mr. Alex Joseph, Adv.  Mr. Nebil Nizar, Adv.  

                   Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR                          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable Judgment.   

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                              (RENU DIWAN)    COURT MASTER                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)