#Pay Revision

Kerala High Court holds that Superintendents of Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) appointed post-2006 under Municipal Common Service Rules are entitled to ratio-based higher grade pay, overturning the state's denial. The court directed reconsideration of claims within four months, reinforcing service equivalence principles under the Kerala Town and Country Planning (Development Authorities) Rules, 2015.

Himachal Pradesh HC holds that re-employed retirees are entitled to arrears based on retrospective pay revisions, even if re-employed on 'last pay drawn' terms, as long as the salary structure was revisionable. The ruling clarifies that pay revisions apply retrospectively to re-employment periods, ensuring government employees receive due arrears.

The Gauhati High Court has quashed a demand notice seeking recovery of pension amounts paid under retrospective pay revision rules, holding that once a court upholds retrospective entitlement, subsequent attempts to claw back benefits violate the principle of judicial finality. This ruling protects thousands of retirees across public sector undertakings from arbitrary post-judgment recovery actions, reinforcing that final judgments create binding, non-reversible entitlements.

Rajasthan High Court rules that post-retirement pay revisions affecting pension and gratuity calculations cannot be imposed unilaterally without notice or hearing, upholding principles of natural justice. The judgment mandates recalculation of retiral benefits based on the last pay certificate, setting a precedent for administrative fairness in service law.

MP High Court affirms that permanently classified employees are entitled to the same pay revisions as regular government employees under the 7th Pay Commission, effective from January 1, 2016. The ruling reinforces constitutional equality in government employment, mandating pay parity for similarly situated employees.

MP High Court reaffirms that permanently classified employees are entitled to revised pay scales under the 7th Pay Commission from 01/01/2016, ensuring pay parity with regular government employees. The ruling mandates retrospective benefits within 90 days, reinforcing the principle of equal treatment for similarly situated employees under service law.

Calcutta HC rules that denying 1997 pay revision benefits to VRS retirees while granting them to officers violates Article 14. The court held that accrued pay scale rights survive retirement, mandating arrears payment from January 1, 1997, within four months from the Rs. 417 crore corpus. This sets a precedent for equal treatment in pay revisions under service law.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that state circulars granting time-bound pay scales after 10, 20, and 30 years of service create enforceable legitimate expectations. The court directs authorities to decide a Patwari’s claim for the third increment within three months, reinforcing that administrative promises must be honored under Article 14.

Madras High Court ruled that a B.Ed. degree cannot be considered an additional qualification for incentive increments under the Tamil Nadu Elementary Service Rules if a B.Lit. degree already satisfies the minimum promotion requirement. The court upheld the recovery of past payments made on this basis, reinforcing statutory interpretation over administrative discretion in service law matters.

The J&K High Court ruled that denying pension benefits under SRO 149 of 1973 due to pending Supreme Court adjudication violates Article 14 and the principle of legitimate expectation. The court emphasized that settled legal issues cannot justify withholding statutory entitlements, setting a precedent for government employees awaiting final judicial clarity.

Rajasthan High Court directs payment of salary arrears, leave encashment, gratuity and PF with 12% interest to retired employee, affirming statutory entitlements under Revised Pay Scales Rules.