9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his respect: WA No. 67 of 2012 SLP (Civil) CC No. 14715 of 2012 Dismissed on 10.09.2012 WA No. 383 of 2009 SLP (Civil) No. 35969 of 2009 Dismissed on 25.02.2015 WA No. 391 of 2009 SLP (Civil) No. 6522 of 2010 Dismissed on 25.02.2015 WA No. 382 to 388 of 2009 SLP (Civil) No. 6523-6530 of 2010 Dismissed on 25.02.2015 WP No. 462 of 2012 WP No. 24912 of 2010 WA No. 383-391 of 2009 SLP (Civil) No. 22491 of 2012 Dismissed on 25.02.2015 WP -29119- 2012 SLP (Civil) No. 33037of 2013 Dismissed on 25.02.2015 WA No. 791 and 792 of 2013 WP No. 2929 and 2930 of 2012 SLP (Civil) No. 33588 of 2013 Dismissed on 25.02.2015 WA No. 130, 131, 132 of 2011 SLP (Civil) CC No. 12886-12888 of 2013 Dismissed on 19.07.2013 WA No. 2243 of 2012 SLP (Civil) CC No. 6602 of 2013 Dismissed on 27.09.2013 WA No. 526 of 2013 SLP (Civil) CC No. 14007 of 2013 Dismissed on 21.08.2013 WA No. 24899 of 2014 SLP (Civil) No. 34265 of 2014 Dismissed on 06.02.2017 6. Be that as it may, it must be noted that all the above orders of this Court were passed at the stage of admission itself. Even the order dated 25.02.2015, passed by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court while dealing with a batch of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order i.e. gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the Respondents that prior to the revision of pay scales under the 1998 Rules, drivers were entitled to the pay scale of ₹ 975-1660 as determined by G.O. No. 818, Finance, dated 09.09.1989. Accordingly, the corresponding revised Ordinary Grade pay scale under Schedule I of the 1998 Rules would be as per Entry No. XX below: SCHEDULE -I LIST OF PAY SCALES Grou Existing Scale Revised Scale P (1) (2) (3) Rs. Rs. I 5500-200-6500 17400-500-21900 II 5100-150-5700 16400-450-20000 III 4500-150-5700 15000-400-18600 IV 4100-125-4850-150-5300 14300-400-18300 V 3950-125-4700-150-5000 12750-375-16500 VI 3700-125-4700-150-5000 12000-375-16500 VII 3000-100-3500-125-4500 10000-325-15200 VIII 2500-75-2800-100-4200 9100-275-14050 IX 2200-75-2800-100-4000 8000-275-13500 X 2000-60-2300-75-3200-100-3500 6500-200-11100 XI 2000-60-2300-75-3200 6500-200-10500 XII 1820-60-2300-75-3200 5900-200-9900 XIII 1640-60-2600-75-2900 5500-175-9000 XIV 1600-50-2300-60-2660 5300-150-8300 XV 1400-40-1600-50-2300-60-2600 5000-150-8000 XVI 1350-30-1440-40-1800-50-2200 4500-125-7000 XVII 1320-30-1560-40-2040 4300-100-6000 XVIII 1200-30-1560-40-204 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 8 of Schedule II. Pursuant to this, the Joint Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, issued Letter No. 96900/PC/98-2 dated 31.12.1998 to all Secretaries to the Government and Heads of Department, on the basis that such fixations were erroneous and needed to be reviewed, with a direction to effect recoveries wherever excess payments had been made. 13. In 2006, the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (E) Department rejected the representation of the Tamil Nadu Government Department Drivers' Central Association seeking fixation of Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales at ₹ 5000-8000 and ₹ 5500-9000 respectively, vide the proceedings in Lr. No. 13921/K/2005-1 dated 25.04.2006. This was challenged by the drivers' association before the High Court in W.P. No. 34800 of 2006, which was allowed on the ground that the said proceedings did not refer to G.O. Ms. No. 162. The association was directed to make a fresh representation before the Finance Department, to be decided in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 162. 14. Such representation, however, was also rejected by the Finance Department vide letter No. 63685/CMPC/2006-1, dated 01.10.2007, which sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n without notice to the government) and could thus be disregarded. 18. Given this departure in the impugned judgment from the consistent view taken by prior coordinate Benches of the High Court, it is necessary to ascertain whether the High Court should have instead referred the matter to a larger Bench for consideration. This merits a closer reading of the decisions of the Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 (supra) and of the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009. As discussed above, the principal issue before the Courts in these decisions was the validity of the order dated 01.10.2007 passed by the Finance Department rejecting the claim of the drivers' association for Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of ₹ 5000-8000 and ₹ 5500-9000 respectively. 18.1 The Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 (supra) and the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 both set aside the order dated 01.10.2007 based on the fact that the claimed higher pay scales had already been granted and were still being received by certain other drivers in several government departments, as per G.O. Ms. No. 162. Further, and more importantly, it was held that the letter dated 31.12.1998 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall proceed to decide it on merits accordingly. 20. In our considered opinion, apart from claiming parity with similarly placed individuals, the Appellants have been unable to justify how and why they are entitled to the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of ₹ 5000-8000 and ₹ 5500- 9000 as specified in Serial No. 8 of Schedule II to the 1998 Rules, in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162. On the other hand, on perusing the series of revisions made to the pay scales applicable to drivers employed with the State Government, we find that the applicable pay scales for the Selection Grade and Special Grade would be as per Serial No. 6 of Schedule II to the 1998 Rules, i.e. ₹ 4000-6000 and ₹ 4300-6000 respectively. 20.1 As the High Court has also noted in the impugned judgment, the pay scales of the Appellants can be traced back to G.O. Ms. No. 666, Finance dated 27.06.1989, by which the State Government issued the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989, implementing the recommendations of the Vth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission. Under these rules, the original and revised pay scales of 30 common categories of posts were specified. The scale of pay for drivers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell. Thus, the jurisdiction of a higher court cannot be invoked on the basis of a wrong order passed by a lower forum. In this respect, it would be fruitful to refer to the following passage from the decision of this Court in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81: "8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shing of paragraph 5 of Letter No. 63305/Pay Cell/2010-1 dated 08.11.2010 issued by the State Government, on which basis the Government had denied them the benefit of Selection and Special Grade pay scales as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules under G.O. Ms. No. 162. The petitioners therein also sought a direction to the State Government for appropriate fixation of pay scales in the above terms. 4. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition on the ground that the drivers were not entitled to any promotional avenues, and hence were entitled to the full benefits of the appropriate pay scale under Schedule II of the 1998 Rules. It was further found that the drivers were entitled to benefits under Serial No. 8 of the said schedule, looking to the disposal of similar matters by the High Court and this Court. The review application filed against the same also came to be dismissed by the High Court. 5. As discussed supra, it has not been disputed before us 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
