Service Law – Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools) Service Rules, 1992 – Pay parity – Revision in pay scales – Of Headmasters w.e.f 01.07.2001 whereby pay scale was revised from 4625-7000 to 6500-10500, additionally, the Selection Grade was also revised to Rs. 7500-250-12000 however, no corresponding revision was made in the pay scales of Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools/Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (SDI/ABSA) and Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (DBSA) w.e.f. 01.07.2001 making their pay scales lesser than that of the Headmasters (who were amongst the feeder cadre categories for appointment by selection against 10% posts of SDI/ABSA) – Multiple rounds of litigation, various orders passed by Supreme Court and High Court – In the present round of litigation, Single Judge of the High Court directed grant of pay scale of 7500-12000 to SDI/ABSA and DBSA, w.e.f 2001 – Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by Division Bench on the ground of delay: Held: There was no pay parity between Headmasters and the SDI/ABSA etc. – It was a mere coincidence that the group of these posts carried the same pay scale for a long time, till the State Government decided to grant a higher revised pay scale to the Headmasters – This led to an anomalous situation as the Headmasters were amongst the feeder cadre categories for appointment by selection against 10% posts of SDI/ABSA – The State itself acknowledged that there was some disparity in the pay scales that needed to be rectified and constituted the Rizvi Committee which made various recommendations like merger of cadres, re-designation and upgradation of posts, the introduction of new pay scales, with an assurance that the re-designated posts would be on a pay scale higher than that of the feeder cadre to redress the grievances of employees like the Respondents and the anomalies stood removed – Appellant-State on being directed by the High Court recalibrated and recompensed the employees like Respondents and put up a proposal before Supreme Court in the previous round of litigation which was approved – State then issued orders granting restructured benefits to the employees like the Respondents who also got monetary benefits over and above the State’s proposal, in furtherance of the High Court decisions dtd. 06.05.02 and 02.02.18 – Now, most of them have retired from service and are senior citizens – The monetary benefits have already been utilised by them on their personal needs – Thus, remittance of the case to the High Court is not likely to bring quietus to the endless litigation – In the case of present nature involving protracted litigation and delay, Article 142 of the Constitution invoked in the larger interest of the administration of justice and to prevent manifest injustice – Directions issued for removal of discrepancy in the pay scales prescribed for SDI/ABSA and DBSA – Respondents entitled to the pay scale, strictly in accordance with the 2011 Order, notionally from 01.01.2006 and actually from 01.12.2008 – Impugned judgement of the Division Bench set aside while that of the Single Judge of the High Court is set aside in part. [Paras 52, 55-57, 60]
Service Law – Constitution of India – Article 16 – Pay parity not an indefeasible right – Incidental grant of same pay scale to different posts not an anomaly:
Held: Prescription of pay scale for a post is policy decision based upon the recommendations of an expert body like Pay Commission – All that the State is obligated to ensure is that the pay structure of a promotional or higher post is not lower than the feeder cadre – Pay parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible enforceable right save and except where the Competent Authority consciously decides to equate two posts notwithstanding their different nomenclature or distinct qualifications – Incidental grant of same pay scale to two or more posts, without any express equation amongst such posts, is not an anomaly in a pay scale of a nature which infringes the right to equality u/Article 16. [Paras 53, 54] Doctrines – Doctrine of merger – Applicability– High Court’s previous order dtd. 06.05.2002, if stood merged with the reasoned order dated 08.12.2010 passed by Supreme Court: Held: Yes – Once leave was granted against the High Court judgment dated 06.05.2002, the doctrine of merger would apply and it stood merged with the reasoned order dated 08.12.2010 – Thus, High Court judgment lost its entity and was subsumed in the order passed by this Court – High Court erred in assuming that its decision dated 06.05.2002 in the first round of litigation was intact and enforceable, independent of the order dated 08.12.2010 passed by this Court in the Civil Appeal arising therefrom. [Paras 41, 44] Doctrines – Doctrine of merger – Principles – Discussed. Delay – On the part of State or its instrumentalities – Condonation – Public interest vis-à-vis individual’s interest – Discussed.
Service Law – Recovery from retired employees: Held: Not approved – Pay benefits released to the writ petitioners arrayed before High Court who had meanwhile retired from service, ought not to have been withdrawn and that too with the added measure of recovery orders being fastened upon them – Single Judge’s direction upheld to this limited extent. [Para 47] Constitution of India – Article 142 – Extraordinary powers under – Exercise of – Discussed.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.