2020 (1) TMI 1103 - SC - Indian Laws

Doctrine of merger - Pay scale of post of drivers - interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 162 - revision of pay scale - fixation of Selection and Special Grade pay scales of certain drivers by certain local departments as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule II - HELD THAT - The drivers concerned were not entitled to any promotional avenues. Thus, it is evident that the High Court rightly concluded that the drivers were entitled to the full benefits of the appropriate pay scale under Schedule II of the 1998 Rules. However, the persons employed in the post of drivers in various departments in the Government of Tamil Nadu are only entitled to Ordinary, Selection and Special Grade pay scales in terms of Serial No. 6 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules, i.e. at ₹ 3200-4900, ₹ 4000-6000 and ₹ 4300-6000 respectively, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court erred in directing fixation of such pay scales to drivers employed at the High Court in terms of Serial No. 8 of the Schedule II, fixing Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay of ₹ 5000-8000 and ₹ 5500- 9000 respectively. The appeals are therefore allowed partly, to the extent that the State Government is directed to fix the pay scale benefits available to the Respondents in the instant appeals in terms of Serial No. 6 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules under G.O. Ms. No. 162.

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales for drivers in various departments of the Government of Tamil Nadu.
2. Interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998.
3. Applicability of prior judicial decisions and orders.
4. Claim of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Selection Grade and Special Grade Pay Scales:
The core issue revolves around whether the appellants (drivers in various departments of the Government of Tamil Nadu) are entitled to the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of ?5000-8000 and ?5500-9000 respectively, as claimed by them, or ?4000-6000 and ?4300-6000 respectively, as argued by the respondents (state authorities).

The appellants argued that they should be granted the higher pay scales in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162, which had been granted to around 3000 similarly placed employees. They relied on various decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court of Madras that had granted similar pay scales to other petitioners.

The respondents contended that the initial grant of the claimed pay scales to some drivers was due to an error by officials in some government departments. They maintained that the correct pay scales for Selection Grade and Special Grade were ?4000-6000 and ?4300-6000 respectively.

2. Interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 162:
The controversy hinges on the interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 162, which revised the pay scales for State Government employees and teachers. The appellants claimed that under Schedule II of the 1998 Rules, they were entitled to the higher pay scales. The respondents argued that the applicable pay scales were lower, as per Serial No. 6 of Schedule II.

The Supreme Court noted that the entire dispute arose from the fixation of pay scales by local departments as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule II, which was later deemed erroneous by the Finance Department. The Court found that the applicable pay scales for drivers, based on the series of revisions made to their pay scales, were indeed ?4000-6000 and ?4300-6000 respectively.

3. Applicability of Prior Judicial Decisions and Orders:
The appellants relied on several prior decisions where the courts had dismissed SLPs against decisions fixing the pay scales of drivers at ?5000-8000 and ?5500-9000. The Supreme Court clarified that these orders were non-speaking and did not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution. Therefore, these prior decisions did not influence the current interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 162.

The Court also discussed the doctrine of merger and noted that the dismissal of an SLP does not imply affirmation of the lower court's decision if the dismissal is non-speaking.

4. Claim of Parity Under Article 14:
The appellants argued that they should be granted the higher pay scales based on Article 14 of the Constitution, claiming parity with other similarly placed individuals who had received the higher pay scales. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that Article 14 embodies the concept of positive equality alone and cannot be used to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity. The Court emphasized that a person cannot claim a benefit under Article 14 if they are not lawfully entitled to it.

The Court held that the appellants could not claim the higher pay scales solely based on prior decisions without showing their lawful entitlement to such benefits. Consequently, the appellants were only entitled to the pay scales of ?4000-6000 and ?4300-6000 as per G.O. Ms. No. 162.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the impugned judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the appellants were not entitled to the higher pay scales of ?5000-8000 and ?5500-9000 and were only entitled to the pay scales of ?4000-6000 and ?4300-6000 respectively. The Court also allowed the appeals filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, directing that the pay scale benefits for drivers employed at the High Court be fixed in terms of Serial No. 6 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules under G.O. Ms. No. 162.

← Previous Next →