Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


Supreme Court Cases

1996 AIR 1010 1996 SCC (7) 392 JT 1996 (1) 561 1996 SCALE (1)479

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


A.J. JOSEPH V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [1996] RD-SC 22 (8 January 1996)




CITATION: 1996 AIR 1010 1996 SCC (7) 392 JT 1996 (1) 561 1996 SCALE (1)479



O R D E R Leave granted.

This appeal is filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench dated March 11, 1987 made in ND OA No. 12/A&N/87. The appellant claimed higher scale of pay as head Compounder. Though the Health Department in Andman & Nicobar Island and recommended to consider his case of grant of special pay, the Government after elaborate consideration in proceedings dt. April 21, 1976 considered that question of prescribing any higher scale of pay for the post of Head compounder in Andman & Nicobar Island does not arise. The Tribunal has held that this being a policy decision, the Tribunal cannot give the direction to prescribe the higher scale of pay to the Head Compounder.

Ms. Lily Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon Fundamental rule 9(25) Clause 7(iii) contended that the appellant is entitled to the special pay on par with others which is being denied to the appellant.

Shri A.N. Jayaram, the learned Additional Solicitor General Appearing for the respondents stated that this grievance was not made by the appellant at any point of time. As a fact all those who are working in Andman & Nicobar Island, as per the Fundamental rules, are being paid Andman special pay and the appellant is not discriminated on that account.

Accepting the contention of the counsel for the respondents, we are of the considered view that the grievance of the appellant is not well founded. It is needless to mention that whatever direction that have been given by the Government of India under the Fundamental Rules for payment of special pay of the employees working in Andman & Nicobar Island, they are entitled for the same and accordingly such special pay be paid to all the eligible persons including the appellant.

The appeal is dismissed with the above observations.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.