P. Singaravelan & Ors. etc. etc. vs The District Collector, Tiruppur and Dt & Ors. etc. etc.

Judgments/orders: Non-speaking order – Effect of – Held: All the orders passed by this Court were non-speaking orders, inasmuch as they were confined to a mere refusal to grant special leave to appeal to the petitioners therein – Dismissal of an SLP against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of the same – If such an order of this Court is non-speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law u/Art. 141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger.

Judicial Discipline: Adjudication of proceedings by the High Court – Parameters to be followed – High Court differed from the view taken previously by a coordinate Bench based on a misreading of the same – Held: In such a situation the High Court should not have proceeded to decide the matter by itself – In the interest of judicial discipline, the High Court should instead have referred the matter to larger Bench for its consideration – Reference to larger Bench.

Partly allowing Civil Appeals @ SLPs [Diary No. 42301/2017] and dismissing all the other appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 It is evident that all the orders passed by this Court were non-speaking orders, inasmuch as they were confined to a mere refusal to grant special leave to appeal to the petitioners therein. It is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLP against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of the same. If such an order of this Court is nonspeaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law under Article

141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger. [Para 7] [415-H; 416-A-B]

1.2 The Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 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 act as a substitute for modification of the G.O. itself. Thus, even though the Court did not give any express direction to grant the higher pay scales as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules, the same was implicit in the Court’s directions for fixing the pay scales in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162. In other words, it cannot be said that the High Court in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 did not affirm the drivers’ claim that they were entitled to the higher Selection and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively. However, in the impugned judgment, the High Court only focused on the fact that the conclusion reached by the coordinate Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 was for appropriate fixation of pay scales under G.O. Ms. No. 162 only, and there was no specific direction for grant of the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively. On this basis, the High Court proceeded to determine the question of pay scale entitlement and took a view diametrically opposite to that of the coordinate Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, finding that the Appellant-drivers were only entitled to the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively. Such an approach is based on a narrow reading of the decision of the coordinate Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, as it fails to appreciate the implicit direction in this order to grant the higher pay scales to the drivers. Thus, it appears that the High Court differed from the view taken previously by a coordinate Bench based on a misreading of the same. In such a situation, once it was found by the High Court that it was in disagreement with the holding of its coordinate Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, it should not have proceeded to decide the matter by itself, and in the interest of judicial discipline, should instead have referred the matter to a larger Bench for its consideration. Be that as it may, in the interest of expeditious disposal of the matter, it is not fit to remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration at this stage. [Para 18.1, 18.2, 19] [422-B-H; 423-A-B]

1.3 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 Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 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, 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. Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively. [Para 20] [423-C-D]

1.4 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 Rs. 610-1075 to Rs. 950-1500. The next revision came through G.O. Ms. No. 818, Finance, dated 09.09.1989, whereby drivers’ pay scale was increased to Rs. 9751660. Later, under G.O. Ms. No. 304, Finance dated 28.03.1990, Special Grade and Selection Grade scales of pay were introduced for persons who had completed 10 years and 20 years of service respectively. For the post of drivers carrying the Ordinary Grade pay scale of Rs. 975-1660, the Selection and Special Grade brackets were set as Rs. 1200-2040 and Rs. 1320-2040 respectively. Finally, when the 1998 Rules were introduced through G.O. Ms. No. 162, the post-wise determination of pay scales was replaced by a pay scale-to-pay scale basis determination. As already seen in Schedule I of the said rules, the pay scale of Rs. 975-1660 applicable to drivers was revised to Rs. 3200-4900. For this, the corresponding Selection and Special Grades specified in Schedule II were Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively. [Para 20.1-20.3] [423-D-H; 424-A]

1.5 There is substance in the submission of the respondents that the appellants are not lawfully entitled to the claimed Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162. [Para 21] [424-B]

1.6 The High Court in the impugned judgment was correct in concluding that the appellants cannot claim such relief on the strength of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, when once it has been found that they are not lawfully entitled to the same. It is well-settled by now that a person cannot invoke Article 14 to claim a benefit extended to someone similarly placed if he is not lawfully entitled to such benefit in the first place. Article 14 embodies the concept of positive equality alone, and not negative equality, that is to say, it cannot be relied upon to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity. In fact, this Court has opined that this principle extends to orders passed by judicial fora as well. Thus, the jurisdiction of a higher court cannot be invoked on the basis of a wrong order passed by a lower forum. [Para 23] [424-D-E] Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC

81 : [2013] 8 SCR 227 ; State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati (2019) 12 SCALE 386 – referred to.

1.7 The appellants cannot claim the Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively, solely on the strength of earlier decisions of the High Court, without showing how they, themselves, are entitled to such benefit in the first place. In such a situation, the appellants can only be granted the benefit of the Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay to which they are lawfully entitled in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162, i.e. Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 43006000 respectively. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. [Para 24, 25] [424-D-F]

2. As regards Civil Appeals @ SLPs [Diary No. 42301/2017], 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 the finding that 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 Rs. 3200-4900, Rs. 40006000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively, there is 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 Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively. 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 [Para 5, 6] [426-E-G]

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359 ; Khoday Distilleries v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. (2019) 4 SCC 376 – referred to.