SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 1393

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
P. Singaravelan & Ors. Etc. Etc. – Appellants
Versus
The District Collector, Tiruppur and DT & Ors. Etc. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.9533-9549, 9551-9561 of 2019 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.5395-5399, 5367-5375, 5605-5613, 5391-5393 of 2016) [Diary No. 42301 of 2017]
Decided On : 18-12-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):T.R.B. Sivakumar, Joseph Aristotle, Priya Aristotle, Sneha, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):B. Karunakaran, Anirudha J., S. Gowthaman, A. Jaswanthi, Purbitaa Mitra, K. V. Vijayakumar, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Vinodh Kanna B., Abhay Singh, M. Yogesh Kanna, Karthik Rajendran, Uma Prasuna B., B. Balaji, Nikhil Swami, A. Lakshminarayanan, Gautam Narayan, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Dismissal of SLP against order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of same.
(2) 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 first place.
(3) Persons employed in the post of drivers in various departments in 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 1998 Rules.


Headnote:

(A) Constitution of Indian – Article 141 – Law of land – Dismissal of SLP against order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of same – If such order of this Court is non-speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of Constitution, or attract doctrine of merger. (Para 7)

(B) Constitution of Indian – Article 14 – Right to equality – 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 first place – Article 14 embodies concept of positive equality alone and not negative equality – It cannot be relied upon to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity – This principle extends to orders passed by judicial Fora as well – Jurisdiction of a higher court cannot be invoked on the basis of a wrong order passed by a lower forum – Appellants cannot claim such relief on strength of Article 14 of Constitution of India when once it has been found that they are not lawfully entitled to the same. (Para 23)

(C) Service Law – Pay Scale – Claim for grant of Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay – Appellants are claiming grant of Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay in bracket of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 which has been granted to around 3000 similarly placed employees – There has been no pronouncement by this Court constituting law of land as to interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 162 – Drivers in various departments of Government of Tamil Nadu were entitled to revised Ordinary Grade pay scales as per Schedule I – Since they did not have any promotional avenues, Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales under Schedule II would become applicable as and when they completed 10 and 20 years of service respectively – Apart from claiming parity with similarly placed individuals, Appellants have been unable to justify how and why they are entitled to 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 1998 Rules, in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162 – Applicable pay scales for Selection Grade and Special Grade would be as per Serial No. 6 of Schedule II to 1998 Rules, i.e. Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively – Appellants are not lawfully entitled to claim Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162 solely on strength of earlier decisions of High Court, without showing how they themselves, are entitled to such benefit in first place – In such a situation, Appellants can only be granted benefit of 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. 4300-6000 respectively – Impugned judgment is confirmed. [Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 – Schedule II] (Paras 8, 10, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 25)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals have been filed against the common final judgment and order dated 08.07.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras allowing writ appeals filed by Respondents herein, being state authorities, and dismissing writ petitions filed by the Appellants herein, being drivers in various departments of the Government of Tamil Nadu, with respect to the Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay applicable to them.

Findings of Court:

Appellants cannot claim 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, we are of the considered view that 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. 4300-6000 respectively.

Result : Appeals allowed partly.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5395-5399 OF 2016; CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5605-5613 OF 2016; CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5391-5393 OF 2016, AND CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5367-5375 OF 2016

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed against the common final judgment and order dated 08.07.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras allowing writ appeals filed by the Respondents herein, being state authorities, and dismissing writ petitions filed by the Appellants herein, being drivers in various departments of the Government of Tamil Nadu, with respect to the Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay applicable to them.

3. The Appellants, in a nutshell, are claiming the grant of Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay in the bracket of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 (for short “G.O. Ms. No. 162”), which has been granted to around 3000 similarly placed employees. The Appellants place reliance on various decisions rendered by this Court and the High Court of Madras in several writ petitions and appeals granting similar pay scales to the petitioners therein. Thus, it is argued that the impugned judgment of the High Court has erroneously differed from the consistent view taken in these decisions.

4. On the other hand, the Respondents argue in favour of the impugned judgment, claiming that the initial grant of the claimed pay scale to some drivers (out of which the entire cluster of litigations arose) was merely on account of an error on the part of officials in some government departments. Thus, it is submitted that the applicable scales of pay are Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively for the Selection Grade and Special Grade.

5. It has come to our attention that several Benches of this Court have dismissed SLPs against decisions of the High Court fixing pay scales of the concerned drivers therein at Rs. 5000-8000 for the Selection Grade and Rs. 5500-9000 for the Special Grade in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 162. We deem it fit to refer to the orders passed by this Court in this respect:

WA No. 67 of 2012

SLP (Civil) CC No. 14715 of 2012

Dismissed on 10.09.2012

WA No. 383 of 2009

SLP (Civil) No. 35969 of 2009

Dismissed on 25.02.2015

WA No. 391 of 2009

SLP (Civil) No. 6522 of 2010

Dismissed on 25.02.2015

WA No. 382 to 388 of 2009

SLP (Civil) No. 6523-6530 of 2010

Dismissed on 25.02.2015

WP No. 462 of 2012 WP No. 24912 of 2010 WA No. 383-391 of 2009

SLP (Civil) No. 22491 of 2012

Dismissed on 25.02.2015

WP -29119-2012

SLP (Civil) No. 33037 of 2013

Dismissed on 25.02.2015

WA No. 791 and 792 of 2013 WP No. 2929 and 2930 of 2012

SLP (Civil) No. 33588 of 2013

Dismissed on 25.02.2015

WA No. 130, 131, 132 of 2011

SLP (Civil) CC No. 12886-12888 of 2013

Dismissed on 19.07.2013

WA No. 2243 of 2012

SLP (Civil) CC No. 6602 of 2013

Dismissed on 27.09.2013

WA No. 526 of 2013

SLP (Civil) CC No. 14007 of 2013

Dismissed on 21.08.2013

WA No. 24899 of 2014

SLP (Civil) No. 34265 of 2014

Dismissed on 06.02.2017

6. Be that as it may, it must be noted that all the above orders of this Court were passed at the stage of admission itself. Even the order dated 25.02.2015, passed by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court while dealing with a batch of appeals having SLP (C) No. 35969/2009 as the lead matter, stated as follows:

    “UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

    ORDER

    Dismissed.”

7. It is evident that all the above orders were non-speaking orders, inasmuch as they were confined to a mere refusal to grant special leave to appeal to the petitioners therein. At this juncture, it is useful to recall that it is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLP ag


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top