2006 (11) TMI 696 - SC - Indian Laws

Claim for fixation of pay in the higher promotional revised pay scale - Ambiguity in the matter of applicability of scale of pay - Revised Pay Rules Or Rules known as Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 ( the ACP Rules ) - Appointment as veterinary surgeon in the cadre of Haryana Veterinary Service (Grade-I) - promoted to the post of Assistant Director - cum - Sub-Divisional Officer - HELD THAT - We, as at present advised, do not intend to go into the question as to whether the Revised Pay Rules or the ACP Rules will apply in the case of Respondent. The dispute between the parties has to be decided in accordance with law. What, however, cannot be denied or disputed that a dispute between the parties once adjudicated must reach its logical conclusion. If a specific question which was not raised and which had not been decided by the High Court the same would not debar a party to agitate the same at an appropriate stage, subject, of course, to the applicability of principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata. It is also trite that if a subsequent cause of action had arisen in the matter of implementation of a judgment a fresh writ petition may be filed, as a fresh cause of action has arisen. A review petition filed by Appellants herein was not maintainable. There was no error apparent on the face of the record. The effect of a judgment may have to be considered afresh in a separate proceeding having regard to the subsequent cause of action which might have arisen but the same by itself may not be a ground for filing an application for review. If the ACP Rules were applicable in the case of Respondent, it was the duty of Appellants to bring it to the notice of the High Court and ask for adjudication on the said question. But the effective order passed as against it could not have been sought to be nullified by raising a question which had not been raised in the writ petition. There might not have been an adjudication on a question which was relevant for determination of the issue directly or indirectly but in a case of this nature such a contention could not have been entertained in a review proceeding which would have the effect of taking away the benefit granted by a court upon adjudication. It may not also be open to a party to the lis to ask for a clarification contrary to or inconsistent with its stand taken by it in the writ proceedings. Therein a review proceeding was entertained as the court accepted its own mistake in understanding the nature and purport of the undertaking given by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Board. It was in that context opined that the subsequent event may be taken into consideration by the court for the purpose of rectifying its own mistake. Subsequent event may have some relevance but the same must have a direct nexus with the judgment sought to be reviewed. It has been noticed hereinbefore that before us an endeavour has been made to urge that the review application was in effect and substance an application for clarification. We, therefore, are of the opinion that this appeal has no merit and, thus, must be dismissed accordingly. However, the question as regards applicability of one or the other Rules if arises in future, the same has to be determined on its own merit in accordance with law and having regard to the fact situation obtaining in each case. Thus, there shall be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 vs. Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998.
2. Entitlement of the Respondent to a higher pay scale upon promotion.
3. Validity of the High Court's decision and subsequent review petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 vs. Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998:
The primary issue in this case revolves around whether the Revised Pay Rules or the ACP Rules should apply to the Respondent's case. The Revised Rules came into force on 7.1.1998, revising the pay scales for various posts. The ACP Rules also came into effect on the same date, providing revised pay scales for certain grades. The Respondent's pay was fixed under the ACP Rules at Rs. 12000-16500. However, a dispute arose regarding whether the Respondent should be placed in the higher pay scale of Rs. 13500-17250 or Rs. 14300-18300 upon promotion. The High Court's order and subsequent review petition failed to resolve this ambiguity, leading to further legal contention.

2. Entitlement of the Respondent to a Higher Pay Scale Upon Promotion:
The Respondent was initially placed in the Selection Grade Scale of Rs. 4100-5300, which was revised to Rs. 13500-17250. Upon promotion to Deputy Director, the Respondent claimed entitlement to the next higher revised pay scale of Rs. 14300-18300. The High Court directed that the Respondent should be promoted in the corresponding scale of Rs. 4100-5300 and given one increment, which led to the Respondent seeking further clarification and filing a contempt petition. The Appellants argued that the Respondent's pay was correctly fixed under the ACP Rules, but the High Court's decision created an anomaly that was not addressed.

3. Validity of the High Court's Decision and Subsequent Review Petition:
The High Court's decision to allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order led to a Special Leave Petition by the Appellants, which was dismissed. The Respondent then filed a Contempt Petition, claiming a higher pay scale. The Appellants contended that the High Court's order was in contravention of the Revised Pay Rules and the ACP Rules. The review application filed by the Appellants was dismissed, with the court noting that an admission made contrary to law is not binding on the State. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judgment must be read in its entirety and implemented accordingly, but also noted that subsequent causes of action could give rise to fresh legal proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the High Court's decision must be implemented. However, it clarified that the applicability of the Revised Pay Rules or the ACP Rules should be determined on a case-by-case basis in future disputes. The court also highlighted the importance of resolving ambiguities in pay scales to avoid financial repercussions and ensure fair treatment of government employees. The judgment underscores the principle that admissions made contrary to law are not binding and that subsequent events may necessitate fresh legal actions.