Apropos to Mr. T Sampath Iyengar’s post on applicability of Mr. M C Jain’s case, we have to keep in mind that the judgment is based on clause 2 of the notification dated 18-07-1996. The court held that those retired before the date of notification were not allowed the option provided in said clause 2 of the notification, which was allowed to those who were in service as on the date of notification and hence denial of revision of salary to the class 1 officers who had retired before 18-07-1996 was illegal and they should be allowed revision from 01-08-1992. Relevant part of the judgment is given below:
“In so far as first prayer in writ petition is concerned, learned Single Judge in impugned judgment has referred to and reproduced clause 2 of said notification dated 18.07.1996, which extended benefit of revised pay scale to employees with effect from 01.08.1992. We reproduce that part of Clause 2 of the Notification, which reads as under :-
‘Save as otherwise provided hereinafter the provisions of these rules shall be deemed to have come into force on the 01st day of August, 1992:
Provided that where any Class I officer gives a notice in writing to the corporation, within thirty days of the publication of these rules in the official Gazette, expressing his option to be governed by the provisions of any of these rules from a date not earlier than the date on which the said rule comes into force, then the Corporation may by order/permit such officer to be governed by the said rule with effect from the said date:
Provided further that no such option may be exercised by a Class I officer in respect of rule 9A of these rules:
Provided also that no arrears for the period prior to the date so chosen shall be payable to such officer.’
Aforesaid clause of notification dated 18-07-1996 clearly indicates that the provisions of said Rules came into effect from 01.08.1992, the date on which respondent Mahesh Chand Jain was very much in service. However, an option given to Class I officers to give a notice in writing within thirty days of the publication of the said Rules expressing there willingness to be governed by the provisions of any clause of these rules from the date not earlier than the date on which the said rule comes into force. This means that a given officer could opt to be governed by the benefit of pay scales from the date later than 01st August, 1992. If what the appellant is contending is accepted, this would mean that even a Class I officer, who could not otherwise exercise the option because he stood retired when the said notification was issued, then he would not get benefit of revision of pay with effect from 01.08.1992 on which date the revised pay scale rules came into force, even though he was physically in service on that day. There is no exception made in the Rules that such benefit would not be admissible to those Class I officers who were actually in service in service between the date the aforesaid Rules came into force i.e. 01.08.1992 and the date of issuance of notification dated 18.07.1996. Their retirement in between was a fortuitous circumstance. Non-grant of such similar benefit to him, would be wholly discriminatory because his co-employees who have yet not retired and continued in service, shall be granted benefit of revision of pay even for the period such retired employees like the respondent, were actually working with them.”
I hope aforesaid paragraphs would clarify the position.
