.
NEW DELHI: In every organisation, be it government or private, increment in an employee’s salary is an annual affair. Not in Supreme Court, where CJIs, on the eve of retirement and irrespective of length of tenure, used discretionary powers to sanction multiple increments to a select few employees.Those who had been Chief Justice of India for a short tenure, too, granted two or three increments in addition to the annual one in salaries to employees — mainly the chief justice’s personal staff or those who had performed exceptionally well and displayed organisational skills.While all 2,000-odd employees received at least two to three additional increments in their pay scale in the last four years, there were some lucky ones in CJIs’ good books who earned as many as six additional increments to get 150% of what should have been their salaries in the normal course.To correct the anomaly in pay scales and salaries of employees caused by discretionary sanctioning of increments, former CJI B R Gavai had called a full court meeting of all judges to discuss the issue. Most judges felt neither was SC a kingdom nor CJI a king to distribute increment largesse to a select few.After a detailed deliberation, the full court decided to stop this practice and withdraw discretionary increments given to employees in the last few years. It was also decided that discretionary allotment of increments would henceforth be decided in the full court, sources told TOI.Those who had got additional increments, apart from annual increments given every year, suddenly discovered their salaries had been reduced considerably. It came as a shock to those who had planned their budgets based on the increased salary — like taking house or vehicle loans that had to be repaid through EMIs.Some of those who had put in additional work and performed exceptionally well to get the increments said their monthly salaries were reduced considerably, in some cases up to Rs 40,000, and vented their ire against one or two registrars who, according to them, briefed the then CJI incorrectly on the issue.TOI spoke to a cross-section of employees, the majority of whom said that it would have been better had SC adjusted the additional increments against future annual increments. That would have kept their salaries intact and enabled them to maintain household budgets and investments in houses or vehicles.
