SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Virendra Bahadur Katheria & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7799 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C.) No. 7130 of 2024)
Decided on : 15-07-2024
PAY SCALE DISPUTE - EDUCATION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES - Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools) Service Rules, 1992; Government Order dated 20.07.2001; Government Order dated 14.07.2011 - The court addressed the pay scale discrepancies between Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools (SDI/ABSA), Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (DBSA), and Headmasters, affirming the need for equitable pay scales as per the 2001 Order. The court interpreted the doctrine of merger and res judicata, concluding that the 2011 Order, which established a new pay scale for SDI/ABSA and DBSA, was valid and should be implemented without recovery of excess payments made to employees.
Fact of the Case:
The case revolves around the pay scale discrepancies for SDI/ABSA and DBSA in the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Department compared to Headmasters, following the 2001 Government Order that revised Headmasters' pay scales but did not adjust those of SDI/ABSA and DBSA. Multiple litigations ensued, culminating in a Single Judge's ruling in 2018 that directed the State to grant the higher pay scale, which the State failed to appeal in a timely manner, leading to contempt proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State's inaction and delay in appealing the Single Judge's decision were unjustified. It upheld the Single Judge's ruling that the pay scales should be revised in accordance with the 2011 Order, which had been approved by the Supreme Court in a previous decision. The court emphasized that the State could not recover excess payments made to employees, affirming the rights of the retired employees.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the SDI/ABSA and DBSA were entitled to the higher pay scale of 7500-12000 from 01.07.2001 or if the 2011 Order, which granted it from 01.12.2008, was appropriate. Additionally, the court examined the implications of the doctrine of merger and res judicata in the context of previous judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the doctrine of merger applied, meaning the earlier High Court judgment was subsumed by the Supreme Court's order, which approved the 2011 Order. The court clarified that the State's failure to appeal in a timely manner and its subsequent actions did not negate the binding nature of the Supreme Court's decision. The court also ruled that recovery of excess payments from retired employees was impermissible under established legal principles.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, affirming the 2011 Order and entitling the respondents to the pay scale of 7500-12000 from 01.12.2008, with no recovery of excess payments. The State was directed to pay arrears with interest within four months.
JUDGMENT :
Surya Kant, J.
Leave granted.
2. This Civil Appeal is directed against the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter, 'High Court'), whereby an intra-court appeal preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter, 'State') challenging the Single Judge's judgement dated 02.02.2018 was dismissed on the ground of delay. Consequently, the judgment of the Single Judge, which effectively directed to grant the pay scale of 7500-12000 to Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools/ Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (hereinafter, 'SDI/ABSA') and the Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (hereinafter, 'DBSA'), with effect from the year 2001, stood affirmed.
3. Since the instant appeal arises out of a long-drawn saga, where multiple rounds of litigation occurred inter-se the parties before various fora, including this Court, it would be appropriate to narrate the factual events before delving into the legal issues raised before us concerning the law of precedents, the doctrine of merger and the principle of res judicata.
FACTS
4. The controversy centers around the alleged discrepancy in the pay scales of SDI/ABSA and DBSA of the Basic Education Department, State of Uttar Pradesh vis-a-vis the Headmasters of Junior High Schools (hereinafter, 'Headmaster'). The genesis of this disparity can be traced back to the Government Order dated 20.07.2001 (hereinafter, 2001 Order'), issued on the basis of the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, pursuant to which the pay scales of State Government teachers, including Headmasters, were brought on par with Central Government teachers, with effect from 01.07.2001.
5. The effect of the 2001 Order, in essence, was that the basic pay scale of Headmasters stood revised from 4625-125-7000 to 6500-200-10500, with a further revision of their Selection Grade from 4800-150-7650 to 7500-250-12000. There was, however, no alteration in the pay scales of SDI/ABSA and DBSA and resultantly, their pay scales became lesser than those granted to the Headmasters.
6. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of this issue, it is essential to take into account the revision in pay scales across various posts over time.
7. The pay scale granted for the post of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools (SDI) since the year 1945, with consequent revisions, is depicted in a tabular format hereinbelow:
| Pay Scale with Effect From | Pay Scale Granted to Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools (Rupees) |
| 1945 | 120-200 |
| 1955 | 120-300 |
| 1965 | 150-350 |
| 1972 | 325-575 |
| 01.07.1979 | 540-910 |
| 01.01.1986 | 1400-2300 |
| 01.01.1996 | 4500-7000 |
| 01.07.2001 | Not Revised |
The position of the ABSA, being equivalent to that of SDI, likewise bore the same pay scale of 4500-7000, with effect from 01.01.1996.
8. The pay scale assigned for the post of DBSA since 1945, with subsequent revisions, is outlined in the table below:
| Pay Scale with Effect From | Pay Scale Granted to Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikari (Rupees) |
| 1945 | 200-250 |
| 1955 | 250-250 |
| 1965 | 250-600 |
| 1972 | 450-950 |
| 01.07.1979 | 770-1600 |
| 01.01.1986 | 2000-3500 |
| 01.01.1996 | 6500-10500 |
| 01.07.2001 | Not Revised |
9. Lastly, the pay scale apportioned for the post of Headmaster since 1945, with subsequent revisions, is detailed in the table below:
| Pay Scale with Effect From | Pay Scale Granted to the Headmaster, Junior High Schools (Rupees) |
| 1945 | 75-175 |
| 1955 | 100-200 |
| 1965 | 100-125 |
| 1972 | 240-390 |
| 01.07.1979 | 490-860 |
| 01.01.1986 | 1450-2300 |
| 01.01.1996 | 4625-7000 (4800-7650)* |
| 01.07.2001 | 6500-10500 (7500-12000)* |
*Selection Grade Pay Scale
10. It may be seen from the above table that the post of Headmaster was placed in the pay scale of 4625-7000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Thereafter, the said pay scale was revised to 6500-10500 w.e.f. 01.07.2001, and in addition, the Selection Grade of Rs.7500-250-12000 was also granted through the 2001 Order. Additionally, Headmasters also got a promotion grade pay
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala
Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India and another
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs
State of Punjab v Rafique Masih (White Washer) and others
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC 654 [Para 49]
Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat v. G. Arumugam (Dead) by Legal Representatives
The court established that the doctrine of merger applies to judgments, meaning that a higher court's decision supersedes lower court rulings, and that recovery of excess payments from retired employ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review can only be exercised if provided under the Statute, and decisions should not be recalled unilaterally and arbitrarily onc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will not entertain appeals seeking to re-open decided matters without pointing out any illegality or infirmity in the previous order....
The court established that primary teachers in municipal schools are entitled to the same higher pay-scale as those in district schools, emphasizing equality in pay for equal work.
Points Of Law : Any amounts paid to appellants under order of the Principal dated or even under the order of learned Single Judge (if any) will not be sought to be recovered from appellants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner was entitled to the revised pay scale for the post of Principal, DIET and the court directed the respondents to revise the pay ....
The judgment established the principle that once employees are in one cadre, the distinction between direct recruits and promotees disappears, and no discrimination can be made thereafter in fixing t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.