Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 77  OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.21221/2004)

G.M. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY & ORS.           Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

BENULAL MUKHERJEE & ORS.                    Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  

appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that  

this matter is squarely covered by the judgment of  

this Court in  Union of India Vs.  Arun Jyoti Kundu  

and Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 472. In the present case, the  

Calcutta High Court vide its judgment dated 4.3.2003  

passed in  WPCT No.1325 of 2002, has dismissed the  

writ petition filed by the appellant. Relying upon  

the  aforementioned  judgment  of  the  High  Court  

rendered in WPCT No.1325 of 2002, the judgment of  

the Tribunal dated 7.1.2003 passed in O.A No.1419 of  

1997 has been affirmed.  

Page 2

2

3. This Court by its judgment in the case of  

Union  of  India  Vs.  Arun  Jyoti  Kundu  and  Ors.  

(supra),  has  set  aside  the  judgment  of  the  High  

Court  and  that  of  the  Central  Administrative  

Tribunal  and  dismissed  the  O.A.  filed  before  the  

Central Administrative  Tribunal.  In paragraph  19  

of the judgment this Court has held as under:

“19. We are afraid that the tribunal has  

exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the  

direction, it has issued.  The fact that  

notwithstanding the Fifth Pay Commission  

not  recommending,  particularly,  the  

payment of higher scale to two sets of  

typists, typists in English language and  

typists in Hindi language, the Government  

chose  to  give  them  relief  with  effect  

from  31.1.2000  would  not  justify  an  

inference of discrimination or a finding  

that the authority has acted arbitrarily  

or  unreasonably.  As  this  Court  has  

clarified in the decisions adverted to,  

it is for the Government to act on the  

report of the Pay Commission or either to  

accept  or  not  to  accept  its  

recommendation.  Once the recommendations  

of  the  pay  commission  are  accepted,  in  

full,  it  could  also  give  effect  to  it  

from the date recommended in that behalf.

Page 3

3

But when admittedly no provision was made  

in  respect  of  the  English  and  Hindi  

typists and they pointed to the anomalies  

and the Government on the basis of the  

recommendation  of  the  Anomalies  

Committees  decided  to  given  them  the  

scale  with  effect  from  31.1.2000,  it  

could not be held to be discriminatory or  

to be beyond the power of the Government.

4. Ultimately, this Court held that the Central  

Administrative Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in  

issuing the directions, it has issued and the High  

Court was in error in not setting them aside and  

accordingly, the original applications filed before  

the Central Administrative Tribunal were dismissed.  

5. In view of the aforesaid observations of this  

Court, this appeal has to be allowed. Accordingly,  

the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed  

by  the  High  Court  in  W.P.C.T.  No.625/2003  on  9th  

September, 2003 is set aside. No costs.

    .........................J      (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

    ...........................J      (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

Page 4

4

New Delhi; January 4, 2013.