The Supreme Court has observed that if governed by the same set of Rules, a single post of the same cadre cannot be isolated and granted a higher pay scale by merely considering the qualifications prescribed for the post.

In that vein, the Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal said that, "From the facts, as have been noticed above, in our opinion, the authorities were hand in gloves with the respondent No. 4 to somehow grant him a higher pay scale and repeatedly action was taken in that direction. If governed by the same set of Rules, a single post of the same cadre could not have been isolated and granted a higher pay scale by merely considering the qualifications prescribed for the post."

AOR Somesh Chandra Jha, along with others, appeared for the appellants, while AOR Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mritunjay Kumar Sinha, and others, appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the appeal challenged the High Court's order, which upheld the Tribunal's decision. The appellant No.1 initially joined the Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology as a Research Assistant in 1990 and was later promoted to Scientific Officer in 1997. The respondent No.4 joined as a Research Assistant (Medicine) in 1999. A common seniority list was prepared in 1999, and the appellants were promoted to Assistant Scientific Officers between 2002 and 2006.

In 2005, the respondent No.4 left CSTT for other roles, and in 2006, his pay scale was upgraded. The Directorate granted him a higher pay scale and Non-Practising Allowance, treating his post as equivalent to that of a doctor. Following concerns about the legality of this, the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) was declared an ex-cadre post in 2007.

The appellants sought similar benefits through representations and legal avenues, but their requests were denied. The Tribunal dismissed their applications in 2010, and subsequent attempts for review were also unsuccessful in both the Tribunal and the High Court.

The Apex Court noted that there was no challenge laid down by the respondent No. 4 to the Rules under which he was recruited, and that he had accepted his appointment letter under the 1980 Rules and had joined service accordingly.

In light of the same, the Court observed that, "We do not find any justification to grant same scale to the appellants as was generously and wrongly granted to the respondent No. 4 by treating him equal to the Medical Officer working in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. As even that scale was wrongly granted to him, there was no justification for grant of higher pay scale to the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 13.12.2006, with effect from 18.01.1999, i.e., the date of his initial appointment. The same was certainly illegal and cannot withstand in judicial scrutiny."

Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court were quashed. It was held that the order justifying the benefits granted to respondent No. 4 was set aside, and resultantly, even the appellants were not held entitled to higher pay scales as were granted to respondent No. 4.

The Court also ordered a direct recovery of the excess amount paid to the respondent No. 4, since it was not a case of a bonafide error and was a well-planned and deliberate infraction. In that context, it was said that, "We therefore direct recovery of the excess amount paid to the respondent No. 4, though in instalments and/or from the officer(s), who were directly involved in the decision-making process of granting undue benefit to the respondent No.4. Both should be made equally liable to reimburse the exchequer for the amount illegally disbursed to the respondent No.4. The exchequer should not be made to suffer on that account and either of two shall have to make good that loss of undue benefit granted to the respondent No. 4."

Cause Title: Dr PN Shukla and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Supreme CourtJustice Hima KohliJustice Rajesh BindalService Matter

Verdictum News Desk