2013 (8) TMI 750 - HC - Indian Laws

Review petition - error on record - power to correct - writ jurisdiction of High Court - grant of promotional pay scale to the petitioners - Held that - the Court while deciding the writ petition has not gone to the controversy involved in the writ petition and was misguided by the Supplementary Counter Affidavit of Sri Ashfaq Ahmad, who ignoring the earlier order of the Department as well as order of State Government has given an impression that claim of the petitioners being genuine would be given although after decision of the State of U.P. in similar matters, he was not competent do allow the claim of the petitioners. The conduct of Sri Ashfaq Ahmad, who was posted on such a high post was not proper. However earlier judgment dated 23.02.2012 suffers from error apparent on the face of record and is liable to be recalled/reviewed. The purpose of justice will not be served by rejecting the Review Application and perpetuating the error again. The writ petition is liable to be decided on merits. - Decision in Commissioner of Customs v. Hongo India Private Limited 2009 (3) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT followed. Grant of Promotional Pay Scale Whether the assesses who were sent on deputation from the Revenue departments, entitled to the same pay scale and other benefits as being provided to the Collections Amins of the Revenue department - Held that - Thus the pay scale had already been provided, no relief can be granted in the Special Appeal - Relief to the petitioners cannot be denied due to pendency of the Special Appeal, which has no legs to stand - order set aside -The petitioners were also entitled to parity in pay scale and promotional pay scale was concerned - The petitioners have fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution for equal treatment - the counsel for the petitioners relying upon Article 14 and 39 (d) of the Constitution - the eligibility, mode of selection/ recruitment, nature and quality of work and duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional need and responsibilities and status of both the posts were identical - The petitioners had made statement in this respect which has not been specifically denied the claim of the petitioners has been denied on an irrelevant considerations - The respondents were directed to grant the same benefits of pay scale and promotional pay scale etc. as given to the Collection Amins of the Revenue department of State of U.P. Whether minimum qualification, mode of recruitment, nature of work and duties and degree of responsibility of the Collection Amins, in Revenue department and Collection Amins, in Trade Tax department are same and employer was the same as such the assesses were also entitled to parity in pay scale and promotional pay scale - Held that - The petitioners had been illegally discriminated without any basis - at the time of sending the petitioners on deputations, they were given same salary, which they were drawing in Collectorate - The anomaly in salary had occurred for the first time due reasons that on the basis of report of Pay Rationalization Committee, by Government Order the pay scale of Collection Amins in Revenue department was refixed and promotional pay scale but same benefits had not been given to the Collection Amins in Trade Tax department - From the chart supplied by the Standing Counsel, it was proved that the petitioners were given Selection Grade, Promotional Grade and Next Higher Grade - Thus there was totally non application of mind at the time of passing the order and order was based upon false reasons.

2009 (3) TMI 31 - SC

Issues Involved:
1. Review Application for the previous judgment.
2. Entitlement to promotional pay scale for Collection Amins in Trade Tax department equivalent to those in Revenue department.
3. Allegation of concealment of facts by the petitioners.
4. Competence of Deputy Commissioner to make admissions contrary to government decisions.
5. Parity in pay scale and promotional pay scale between Collection Amins in different departments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Review Application for the Previous Judgment:
The writ petition was originally decided based on an admission in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) Commercial Tax, Allahabad. The court directed the respondent to decide the matter for granting the promotional pay scale within two months. However, the respondents filed a Review Application along with a delay condonation application, arguing that the admission was incorrect and unauthorized. The respondents claimed that the petitioners' claims had already been rejected by the competent authority and that the Standing Counsel was misguided by the Supplementary Counter Affidavit. The court considered the arguments and found that the previous judgment was based on an incompetent and inadvertent admission, warranting a review of the order.

2. Entitlement to Promotional Pay Scale for Collection Amins in Trade Tax Department:
The petitioners, who were initially appointed as Collection Amins in the Revenue department and later sent on deputation to the Trade Tax department, claimed entitlement to the same promotional pay scale as their counterparts in the Revenue department. The court noted that the petitioners were initially given the same pay scale as in the Revenue department but were later denied the promotional pay scale. The court found that the petitioners had a lien on their original posts and were entitled to the same pay scale and promotional pay scale as given to the Collection Amins in the Revenue department. The court quashed the impugned orders denying the promotional pay scale and directed the respondents to grant the same benefits within two months.

3. Allegation of Concealment of Facts by the Petitioners:
The respondents alleged that the petitioners had concealed the fact that their claims had already been rejected by the competent authority. The petitioners countered this by stating that the rejection orders were never communicated to them and were not brought on record by the respondents. The court found that the allegations of concealment were unfounded and that the petitioners had not deliberately concealed any facts.

4. Competence of Deputy Commissioner to Make Admissions Contrary to Government Decisions:
The respondents argued that the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) Commercial Tax, Allahabad, was not competent to make any concessions contrary to the statutory rules and government decisions. The court agreed that the judgment was based on an unauthorized and incorrect admission by the Deputy Commissioner, who had ignored the earlier orders of the department and the State Government. The court noted that the Deputy Commissioner's conduct was improper and that the earlier judgment suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record, necessitating a review.

5. Parity in Pay Scale and Promotional Pay Scale Between Collection Amins in Different Departments:
The petitioners argued that they were entitled to the same pay scale and promotional pay scale as the Collection Amins in the Revenue department, citing Article 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution and various Supreme Court judgments. The court found that the minimum qualification, mode of recruitment, nature of work, duties, and degree of responsibility of the Collection Amins in both departments were identical. The court held that the denial of equal pay scale was not based on reasonable classification and that the petitioners were entitled to parity in pay scale and promotional pay scale. The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to grant the same benefits as given to the Collection Amins in the Revenue department.

Conclusion:
The Review Application was allowed, and the earlier order dated 23.02.2012 was recalled. The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to grant the same benefits of pay scale and promotional pay scale to the petitioners as given to the Collection Amins in the Revenue department within two months.

← Previous Next →