Service Law – Pay scale – Single post of same cadre – One officer given higher pay scale than the other – Correctness:
Held: 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 – On facts, representations made by the appellants-Assistant Scientific Officer claiming that the respondent No. 4-Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) having been granted a higher pay scale along with Non Practicing Allowance-NPA, though not practising as a doctor, they were also entitled to the same as they were appointed on the same post, governed by the same Rules and were discharging the same duties – There is no justification to grant same scalehigher pay scale to the appellants as was generously and wrongly granted to the respondent No. 4 alongwith the NPA by treating him equal to the Medical Officer working in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare – 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 – Favouritism shown to the respondent No. 4 is evident from the facts – There was no justification for grant of higher pay scale to the respondent No. 4 with effect from the date of his initial appointment – Same was illegal and cannot withstand in judicial scrutiny – Furthermore, without there being any amendment in the Rules, the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) was declared ex-cadre and the NPA granted to the respondent No. 4, though he was not practising as a doctor, was withdrawn – Thus, the order justifying the benefits granted to respondent No. 4 set aside – Appellants not entitled to higher pay scales as were granted to respondent No. 4 – Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014 – Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014 – Central Hindi Directorate (Research Assistant) Recruitment Rules, 1980. [Para 42, 53-59].
Service law – Grant of undue benefits to the employee-Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) – Correctness:
Held: Respondent No. 4-Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) was unjustifiably paid salary in the higher pay scale - One option could be that whatever had been paid to him till date, be left as such and his pay could be directed to be re-fixed from a future date, however, having regard to the level of the post and the manner in which he was extended special treatment at every step and was granted higher pay scale, said course is not adopted as this is not a case of any bonafide error – It was a well-planned and deliberate infraction – Thus, issuance of direction for recovery of the excess amount paid to the respondent No. 4, and/or from the officer(s), directly involved in the decision-making process of granting undue benefit to the respondent No.4 – Both to be made equally liable to reimburse the exchequer for the amount illegally disbursed to the respondent No.4 – Exchequer should not be made to suffer on that account and either of two have to make good that loss of undue benefit granted to the respondent No. 4. [Para 60] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
D.S. Parvathamma v. A. Srinivasan (2003) 4 SCC 705 : [2003] 3 SCR 197; A.K. Dass v. National Federation of Cooperative Sugar Factories Ltd. and others (1994) 2 SCC 520; Union of India and others v. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421 : [2020] 7 SCR 851; Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another v. Bal Krishan Sharma and others (2022) 1 SCC 322; Ajit Kumar Bhuyan and others v. Debajit Das and others (2019) 12 SCC
275 : [2018] 13 SCR 1012 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.