Back
Supreme Court of India
ANIL R. DAVE, DIPAK MISRA
State of Rajasthan & Another
Versus
Surendra Mohnot & Others
Case No :Civil Appeal Nos. 5860-5861 of 2014 (Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 36116-36117 of 2011)
Decided on : 30-06-2014
(B) Review—Power of High Court—Constitution Bench—Held, nothing in Article 226 of Constitution precludes a High Court from exersing power of review to prevent miscarriage of Justice and to correct grave error committed by it—However, power of review is not to be confused with appellate Court—While reviewing the matter, High Court cannot sit as Court of appeal.
(C) Advocates—Professional Ethicst—Held, the duty of an advocate as an officer of the Court to assist the Court in a properly prepared manner—A counsel who represent the State required to state the facts in a correct and honest manner.
Appeal Allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The grant of selection grade to employees is to be reckoned from the date of regularization in service, not from the date of ad hoc or temporary appointment (!) (!) .
The power of the High Court under Article 226 includes the authority to exercise review to prevent miscarriage of justice and correct grave errors, but this power is distinct from an appellate review and cannot be used to re-argue the case on merits (!) (!) .
An error apparent on the face of the record is one that is self-evident, patent, and does not require lengthy reasoning to establish; such errors can be corrected through review proceedings (!) (!) .
Orders passed on the basis of incorrect or irrelevant authorities, or based on erroneous concessions, are subject to correction if such errors are self-evident (!) (!) .
Concessions made by parties, especially those that are incorrect or based on misapprehensions, should be carefully scrutinized, and courts have the authority to recall or rectify such orders if they are found to be based on mistake or misstatement (!) .
The primary criterion for determining entitlement to benefits such as the grant of selection grade is the date of regular appointment in accordance with recruitment rules, rather than earlier ad hoc or temporary appointments (!) .
The legal position is that the period of service for the purpose of granting benefits like selection grades must be counted from the date of regularization, and prior periods of ad hoc or temporary service do not qualify unless explicitly specified (!) (!) .
The role of advocates and legal representatives is fundamental; they are expected to act with sincerity, honesty, and professionalism, assisting the court in a properly prepared manner, and upholding the integrity of the legal process (!) (!) .
Courts have an obligation to ensure that their orders are based on correct facts and law, and they possess the inherent power to review and correct mistakes, especially when such mistakes are self-evident and could lead to a miscarriage of justice (!) (!) .
Orders based on concessions or statements that are incorrect or based on misapprehensions can and should be revisited and corrected to uphold the principles of justice and fairness (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with any specific aspect.
Judgment :
Dipak Misra, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were appointed on ad hoc basis as Lower Division Clerks either directly or from amongst the class IV employees for a fixed tenure for smooth functioning of administrative work. The nature of appointments are clear from the appointment orders dated 26.6.1986, 5.7.1986 and 25.10.1986. Respondent No. 7 was appointed on similar conditions in January, 1998. On 28.4.1993, the respondents appeared in the requisite test and, accordingly, were regularized on the posts of Lower Division Clerk by order dated 28.4.1993.
On 25.1.1992, the State of Rajasthan issued a circular which pertained to prescription of Selection Grades for employees in Class IV, Ministerial and subordinate services and those holding isolated posts and fixation of pay in Selection Grades. The circular was made applicable to certain categories of employees and it also prescribed the period. Paragraph 2 of the circular stipulated that (i) the first Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of nine years, provided that the employee has not got one promotion earlier as is available in his existing cadre; (ii) the second Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of eighteen years, provided that the employees has not got two promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first Selection Grade granted to him was lower than the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000; and (iii) the third Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes services of twenty seven years, provided that the employee has not got three promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first or the second Selection Grade granted to him as the case may be was lower than the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. Paragraph 3 provided that the service of 9, 18 and 27 years, as the case may be, would be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules. It is apt to note here that the circular postulated certain other conditions which are as follows: -
“7. Selection Grades in terms of this order shall be granted only to these employees whose record for service is satisfactory. The record of service which makes one eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority shall be considered to the satisfactory for the purpose of grant of the selection.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing paragraphs, if an employee forgoes promotion on issue of order to this effect he shall not be granted second or third selection grade under this order.
Grant of selection Grade shall not effect the seniority in the cadre not the sanctioned strength of each category of posts in the cadre.
If an eligible employee becomes entitled to second or third selection grade straightway in terms of this order, his pay would be fixed directly in the second or third selection grade as the case may be with reference to pay being drawn immediately before grant of the second or third selection grade.”
The aforesaid circular was issued to avoid stagnation in certain categories of service with the objective that a stagnated employee should get the next pay-scale available for the promotional post without availing the promotion because of lack of vacancies after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service.
The respondents, along with some others, preferred certain writ petitions challenging the action of the State Government refusing to grant increments to them for the period before their regularization in service. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, and on being challenged in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 377 of 1996 (Chandra Shekhar v. State of Rajasthan and others), the Division Bench opined thus: -
“The appellants continued in the service from 1986 to 1993 as temporary employees in the Pay Sca
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
