Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MN-263 of 1983/Pb., decided on 18th April, 1984.

---8.2003--Pay--Allowances can be considered as part of pay for some purposes but cannot be called basic pay in a given pay scale--Railway employees allowed 10% increase upon basic pay for purposes of fixation in revised pay scale 55% running allowance, held, rightly not included in basic pay while calculating 10% increase.

Syed Intisar Hussain for Appellant.

Ch. Nazir Hussain for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15th April, 198.4.

This is an appeal preferred against the decision dated 31-10-1982 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for the fixation of pay after including the 55% running allowance was accepted.

2. The appellant fixed the pay of the respondent in the revised scale by allowing 10% increase upon basic pay plus dearness allowance. The claim of the respondent is that 55% running allowance should have been included in the aggregate before calculating 10% increase. The original letter No. Admn. 76-PC/1, dated 30-4-1977 was amended by P.R. Gazette No.12 of 15-6-1977 by adding the word thereon in section 3. The amended section 3 reads as under:-

"In the case of existing employees, the initial pay in the relevant Revised National Scale of Pay shall be fixed at the stage equal to, or if there is no such stage, at the stage next above, the amount arrived at by allowing an increase of 10% over the aggregate of the basic pay in the existing scale and the dearness allowances thereon that would have been admissible, but for these orders, on 1st May, 1977."

This is evident from the notification quoted above that there is no mention of running allowance. So, while calculating the increase at 10% the running allowance at 55% is not to be added. After fixation of the initial pay any other allowance including the running allowance which the incumbent was taking would remain intact. It has been argued that since the 'pay' has been defined in rule 2003 including running allowance at 55%, so this allowance is to be included in the aggregate before adding increase at 10%. This argument has no force. The words "the aggregate of basic in the existing scale" are significant. "Basic pay in existing scale" does not include allowances. When we call basic pay in a particular scale, it means the pay given in a scale. Neither in the existing scale nor in the revised scale any kind of allowance is mentioned, nor could be legally mentioned. Allowances can never be called basic pay in a scale. They may be considered as part of pay for some purposes but cannot be called basic pay in a given scale. If allowances had been part of basic pay, in the notification referred to above, dearness allowance would not have been mentioned separately. The appellant thus rightly did not include 55% running allowance while calculating the increase at 10%. The learned lower Court wrongly directed that 55% running allowance should be added while calculating the increase at 10%.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed.

A. E.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.