VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Article 142 of the Constitution vests power in the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it. The provision contains no limitation regarding the causes or the circumstances in which the power can be exercised nor does it lays down any condition to be satisfied before such power is exercised. The exercise of the power is left completely to the discretion of the highest court of the country and its order or decree is made binding on all the Courts or Tribunals throughout the territory of India. However, this power is not to be exercised to override any express provision.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Article 142-Powers of Supreme Court to pass orders to do complete justice-No condition need to be satisfied before power is exercised-Exercise of power completely to discretion of Supreme Court-No limitation regarding causes or circumstances in which power can be exercised- Power not to be exercised to override any express provision.
       (ii) Service Law-Indian Railway Establishment Code-Rule 1A-Traffic/Commercial Assistants-Different pay scales for pre 1987 and post 1987 Traffic apprentices-Conflicting decisions of various benches of CAT as to entitlement to pre 1987 appointees for pay equal to post 1987 appointees-Supreme Courts decision in UOI v. M. Bhaskar & Ors., 1996(4) SCC 416 negativing entitlement and direction invoking Article 142 not to recover amount already paid consequent to contrary decisions of CAT-Plea that some employees who were given benefit pursuant to judgments of CAT have got further promotion and they may lose benefit of such promotion if directions of Supreme Court are allowed to stand-Untenable-Directions/observation in paras 17 and 18 of Bhaskar s judgment absolutely necessary for maintaining equality and fair play with other similarly placed employees.
       Article 142 of the Constitution vests power in the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it. The provision contains no limitation regarding the causes or the circumstances in which the power can be exercised nor does it lays down any condition to be satisfied before such power is exercised. The exercise of the power is left completely to the discretion of the highest court of the country and its order or decree is made binding on all the Courts or Tribunals throughout the territory of India. However, this power is not to be exercised to override any express provision. It is not to be exercised in a case where there is no basis in law which can form an edifice for building up a super structure. This Court has not hesitated to exercise the power under Article 142 of the Constitution whenever it was felt necessary in the interest of justice. (Para 9)
       In the case on hand the controversy relates to the scale of pay admissible for Traffic Apprentices in the Railways appointed prior to the cut-off date. The controversy in its very nature is one which applies to all such employees of the Railways; it is not a controversy which is confined to some individual employees or a section of the employees, if the judgment of the tribunal which had taken a view contrary to the ratio laid down by judgment of this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. M. Bhaskar & Ors., 1996(4) SCC 416 was allowed to stand then the resultant position would have been that some Traffic Apprentices who were parties in those cases would have gained an unfair and undeserved advantage over other employees who are or were holding the same post. Such enviable position would not only have been per se discriminatory but could have resulted in a situation which is undesirable for a cadre of large number of employees in a big establishment like that of the Indian Railways. To avoid such a situation this Court made the observations in paragraph 17 of the judgment. At the cost of repetition we may reiterate that since the main plank of argument of the appellants was that since they were not parties in the case they had no opportunity to place their case before this Court made the observations in paragraph 17 of the judgment as aforementioned we specifically asked learned counsel appearing for the parties to place the argument in support of their challenge to the observations made by this Court on merits. No point of substance assailing the observations on merits could be placed by them. The only contention made in that regard was some of the employees who were given benefit in the judgments of the CAT have got further promotions and they may lose the benefit of such promotion in case the observations made in paragraph 17 of the judgment are allowed to stand as it is. We are not impressed by the contention raised. If some employees were unjustly and improperly granted a higher scale of pay and on that basis were given promotion to a higher post then the basis of such promotion been on a non-existent; the superstructure built on such foundation should not be allowed to stand. This is absolutely necessary for the sake of maintaining equality and fair play with the other similarly placed employees. However, in our considered view, it will be just and fair to clarify that any amount drawn by such employees either in the basic post (Traffic Apprentice) or in a promotional post will not be required to be refunded by the employee concerned as a consequence of this judgment This position also follows as a necessary corolary from the observations made by this Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment in M. Bhaskar s case (supra). (Para 23)

Judgement Key Points

The legal principles outlined in the provided case underscore the importance of fairness and equality in the treatment of employees, particularly regarding service conditions and benefits. When different cadres or categories of employees are involved, but the fundamental condition of service—such as the cost of living in a specific location—is the same for all, the rationale for maintaining uniformity in allowances like House Rent Allowance (HRA) becomes clear. Such uniformity helps prevent feelings of discrimination or unfair treatment, often referred to as "heartburn," which can arise from disparate allowances despite similar circumstances.

The case emphasizes that the overarching goal of administrative fairness is to ensure that all employees in comparable situations are treated equitably, thereby maintaining harmony and preventing grievances that could disrupt organizational efficiency. If the cost of living is uniform across all categories of employees, then the allowances designed to compensate for such costs should also be consistent. This approach not only promotes fairness but also upholds the principles of equality enshrined in service law and administrative practice.

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted.

2. The appellants who were appointed as Traffic Apprentices in Southern Railway prior to May 15, 1987, have filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short the CAT) dated October 4, 1996 in OA No. 1096 of 1996 dismissing the case with the observation that it would be appropriate for the applicants to approach the Supreme Court for any clarification/review of the judgment in the case titled Union of India and others v. M. Bhaskar and others1. The controversy which arose in that case was regarding the claim of Traffic Apprentices appointed prior to 15-5-1987 that they should be given the scale of pay of Rs. 1600-2660, benefit of which was available to Traffic Apprentices recruited after 15-5-1987. Similar claims were raised before different benches of the CAT. There had been divergence of opinion between the different benches, some accepting the claim of pre 1987 Traffic Apprentices for the higher scale of pay, some other benches taking a contrary view. The Ernakulam bench of CAT had quashed the memorandum dated 15-5-1987 issued by the Railway Board in which it was provided that the higher scale of pay would be admissible only to the Traffic Apprentices recruited after the date of the memorandum. These conflicting views taken by different benches of the CAT came up for consideration by this Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. M. Bhaskar and others (supra), in which a Bench of three learned Judges held inter alia (i) that Rule 1-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Code which had come to be made pursuant to the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution permitted the Railway Board to issue necessary instructions regarding recruitment in the lowest grade and the memorandum dated 15-5-1987 having been issued in exercise of that power, the Board had valid authority to issue the memorandum;

(ii) that since the recruitment of apprentices under the impugned memorandum was to man the posts, not of Assistant Station Masters, Assistant Yard Masters etc. as before, but of Station Masters and Yard Masters and the standard of examination for the apprentices to be recruited after 15-5-1987 was required to be higher than that which was prevailing, giving them higher pay scales or reducing the period of their training, could not be said to be discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable.

(iii) That the cut off date 15-5-1987 is not arbitrary since the court felt satisfied that the date is of relevance and the memorandum as given came to be issued in the circumstances noticed in the judgment. This Court upheld the validity of the memorandum. The conclusions arrived at by this Court were summed up in paragraph 17 of the judgment which reads as follows :

"17. All the appeals, therefore, stand disposed of by setting aside the judgments of those tribunals which have held that the pre-1987 Traffic/Commercial Apprentices had become entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs.1600-2660 by the force of memorandum of 15-5-1987. Contrary view taken is affirmed. We also set aside the judgment of the Ernakulam Bench which declared the memorandum as invalid; so too of the Patna Bench in appeal @ SLP (C) No. 15438 of 1994 qua Respondent 1. We also state that cases of Respondents 2 to 4 in appeals @ SLPs (C) Nos. 2533-35 of 1994 do not stand on different footing."

3. In paragraph 18 of the judgment this Court considering the hardship which may be caused to the appellants concerned directed Union of India and its officers not to recover the amount already paid. The said paragraph is quoted herein below :

"18. Despite the aforesaid conclusion of ours, we are of the view that the recovery of the amount already paid because of the aforesaid judgments of the Tribunals would cause hardship to the respondents/appellants concerned and, therefore, direct the Union of India and its officers not to recover the amount already paid. This pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 49

Cases Referred (13)