TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xing 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. - CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9533-9537 OF 2019 (S.L.P. (CIVIL) NOS.5395-5399 of 2016) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9538-9546 OF 2019 (SLP(C) Nos. 5605-5613 of 2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9547-9549 OF 2019 (SLP(C) Nos. 5391-5393 of 2016) & OTHERS - - - Dated:- 18-12-2019 - MR. MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND MR. KRISHNA MURARI, JJ. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9551-9559 OF 2019 (SLP(C) Nos. 5367-5375 of 2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9560-9561 OF 2019 (SLP(C) Nos. of 2019), [Diary No. 42301/2017] For the Petitioner : Mr. T.R.B. Sivakumar, AOR, Mr. Joseph Aristotle, Adv., Ms. Priya Aristotle, AOR, Ms. Sneha, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. B. Karunakaran, Adv., Mr. Anirudha J., Adv., Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR, Ms. A. Jaswanthi, Adv., Ms. Purbitaa Mitra, Adv., Mr. K. V. Vijayakumar, AOR, Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR, Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t fit to refer to the orders passed by this Court in this 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of being laid shall be determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking 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 me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the G.O. that for posts with no promotional avenues, the Selection Grade and Special Grade scales as indicated in Schedule II would be applicable. 10. It is not in dispute that drivers in various departments of the Government of Tamil Nadu were entitled to revised Ordinary Grade pay scales as per Schedule I. Further, since they did not have any promotional avenues, Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales under Schedule II would become applicable as and when they completed 10 and 20 years of service respectively. The dispute here lies with respect to the entries under Schedules I and II applicable to the post of drivers. It is the submission 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) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 55-2660-60-3200 (emphasis added) 11. Relying on this, the Respondents submit that the drivers are entitled to a revised Ordinary Grade pay scale of ₹ 3200- 4900 only. As regards the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales applicable, the Respondents claim that the Appellants are entitled to pay scales of ₹ 4000-6000 and ₹ 4300-6000 respectively as per Serial No. 6 of Schedule II, which is corresponding to Entry No. XX of Schedule I. On the other hand, the Appellants claim that they are entitled to the revised Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of ₹ 5000-8000 and ₹ 5500-9000 respectively as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule II. It would be useful to refer to Schedule II in this regard: SCHEDULE - II REVISED SELECTION GRADE AND SPECIAL GRADE SCALE OF PAY Sl. Nos (1) Ordinary Grade (2) Selection Grade (3) Special Grade (4) Rs. Rs . Rs. 1 2550-55-2660-60-3200 2650-65-3300-70-4000 2750-70-3800-7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment 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 states as follows: 3. Therefore, the Drivers are entitled for the Selection Grade / Special Grade scales of pay as ordered in Schedule-II of G.O. Ms. No. 162, Finance (PC) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nate 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 wherein such higher pay scale fixations were deemed to be erroneous, would not have the effect of reducing the entitlement of drivers, as such a letter could not ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts 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 was mentioned at Serial No. 11 in the first part of the Schedule to these rules, having been revised from ₹ 610-1075 to ₹ 950-1500. 20.2 Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld 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 repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 Schedule II of the 1998 Rules. However, in light of our foregoing finding that persons employed in the post of driver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
