1. Writ for mandamus seeking higher pay scale based on board proceedings — Review allowed, benefits granted. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 99315
Prayer in WA No. 105 of 2024 : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to aside the order dated 03.08.2022 made in Rev.Apl.No.26 of 2020 in WP No.15799 of 2010 and consequently uphold the order made in WP No. 15799 of 2010 dated 17.10.2012 and dismiss the Review Application.
Prayer in WA No. 159 of 2024 : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 03.08.2022 made in Rev.Apl.No. 27 of 2020 in W.P.No. 15800 of 2010 and consequently up hold the order made in WP No. 15800 of 2010 dated 17.10.2012 dismiss the Review Application.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.S.Ravindran, Senior Counsel
for Ms.Mekhala S
Standing Counsel for TWAD
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Muthukrishnan
for Mr.M.Sridhar
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Ravindran, Mekhala S
For the Respondents: S. Muthukrishnan, M. Sridhar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Ravindran, Mekhala S
For the Respondents: S. Muthukrishnan, M. Sridhar
Pay fixation is an executive function requiring judicial restraint. Employees are bound by the pay scale accepted in their appointment orders. Erroneous judicial orders or mistaken administrative implementations in similar cases do not create a binding precedent for parity to perpetuate such errors.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Fixation of Pay Scales - Executive Function - Granting of pay scales is purely an executive function and hence the Courts should not interfere with the same, as it may have a cascading effect. Courts should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in such executive functions. (Para 13)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope - Courts in exercise of limited power of judicial review can only examine whether the decision of the authorities is resulting in being unjust and prejudicial to a particular set of employees by ignoring material and relevant facts. The Court cannot direct the authorities to fix a particular scale of pay, which results in complications and huge financial burden. (Para 14)
(C) Parity and Precedents - Erroneous implementation of certain court orders in the absence of consideration of relevant facts need not be considered as a precedent to continue the mistake perpetually. Individual orders granted on misplaced sympathy cannot create a "spinning wheel of precedents" to choose from, thereby causing inconsistencies and diluting the actual rules and law. (Paras 11, 15)
Facts of the case:
Respondents were appointed as technical personnel in 1987 with a specific pay scale explicitly mentioned in their appointment orders. They subsequently sought a higher pay scale based on a board proceeding issued in 1986. It was contended by the respondents that other similarly placed employees had been granted the higher scale based on previous court orders and awards, and thus they were entitled to the same benefit.
Findings of Court:
The appointment orders stipulated the scale of pay, which the respondents accepted and joined. The board proceeding relied upon for the claim of higher pay applied to employees working during 1986, whereas the respondents were appointed in 1987. The court found that the material facts relevant for deciding the correctness of the scale of pay were not taken into consideration by the writ court during the review application process.
Issues: Whether employees who accepted a specific pay scale in their appointment orders can subsequently claim a higher scale based on earlier board proceedings and parity with employees who benefited from erroneous court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once an order of appointment is accepted and an employee has joined as stipulated, they cannot claim a higher scale of pay. Pay fixation is an executive function into which courts should not generally interfere. Furthermore, erroneous judicial precedents or mistaken implementation of orders by authorities cannot be used as a basis for parity to continue mistakes in perpetuity.
Result: The orders dated 03.08.2022 passed in Review Application Nos.26 and 27 of 2020 in W.P.Nos.15799 and 15800 of 2010 are set aside and the writ appeals stand allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant: claim is stale, appointment order specifies pay scale. Respondent: labour court award and division bench orders grant higher scale. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Appointment order explicitly states pay scale; board proceedings apply only to employees working in 1986. (Para 9 )
4. Erroneous implementation of court orders does not create a precedent to perpetuate mistakes. (Para 11 )
5. Appeals allowed; review application orders set aside. (Para 15 )
6. Can an employee appointed after a pay revision claim the revised scale?
No, if the appointment order specifies a different pay scale and the employee accepted it without challenge. (Para 9 )
7. Does erroneous implementation of court orders create a precedent?
No; such mistakes cannot be used as precedents to perpetuate the error. (Para 11 )
8. Should courts interfere in fixing pay scales?
Courts should exercise judicial restraint as pay scale fixation is an executive function. (Para 13 )
9. What is the scope of judicial review in pay fixation?
Courts can only examine if the decision is unjust or prejudicial, not direct a particular scale. (Para 14 )
Common Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
The present intra court appeals have been instituted challenging the order dated 03.08.2022 passed in Review Application Nos.26 and 27 of 2020 in W.P.Nos.15799 and 15800 of 2010.
2. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘TWAD Board’) is the appellant. The respondent along with three other employees of the Board filed a writ of Mandamus in W.P.Nos.15798 to 15800 of 2010 to direct the appellants herein to implement the Board Proceedings in B.P.No.505 dated 12.12.1986 and grant all the benefits. The Writ Court dismissed the writ petition on 17.10.2012. Writ appeals came to be filed in W.A.Nos.1709 to 1712 of 2014 and the Division Bench passed an order on 01.08.2018 recording that, in respect of some of the employees wages have been fixed in this connection in proceedings dated 21.11.2012. Since the said letter was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench granted liberty to the writ petitioners to file appropriate review petitions. Thereafter, Review Application Nos.26 and 27 of 2020 were filed. The learned Single Judge allowed the Review Applications and granted the benefits of revised scale of pay. Thus, the present appeals have been filed by the Board.
3. The facts in brief are that the respondents were appointed as Rig Helpers vide appointment order dated 07.10.1987. The order of appointment reads as under:
“ Under Regulation 50 of TWAD Board S.R.1972 read with B.P.Ms.No.141 dated 04.03.1986, B.P.Ms.No.109 dated 06.04.1987 and B.P.Ms.No.113 dated 07.04.1987 the following candidates who were sponsored by the District Employment Officer (Tech.Personnel) Coimbatore-9 vide reference 4th cited are temporarily appointed as Rig Helpers on a pay of Rs.505-10-555-15-615-20-795-25-845 plus usual allowances admissible as per rules in force and posted to TWAD Board, Mechanical Sub Division, No.3, Ananda Nagar, Vadavalli (PO) Coimbatore-41.”
4. The order of appointment in clear terms stipulates the scale of pay for which the respondents are eligible. They are appointed as regular employees under the regular establishment in the scale of pay of Rs.505-10-555-15-615-20-795-25-845 with usual allowances. When the order of appointment stipulates scale of pay admissible to the employee, the same has to be paid by the Board. It is not in dispute that the respondents had continued to receive the said scale of pay and re-fixation of pay subsequently made in the correspondent scale in pursuance to the Pay Commission recommendation.
5. Writ of Mandamus was filed by the respondents seeking refixation of pay applicable to the post of Grade I ie., Rs.610/- Claim was made by the respondents based on B.P.No.505 dated 12.12.1986. On a perusal of the impugned order passed in the Review Application, there is no consideration with reference to the pay fixed in the order of appointment issued to the respondents. Applicability of B.P.505 dated 12.12.1986 was also not considered by the learned Single Judge while allowing the review application.
6. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the TWAD Board would submit that the claim of the respondents seeking higher scale of pay is stale and untenable on the ground that the appointment was made as Assistant Helper in the scale of pay of Rs.505, which has been explicitly stated in the order of appointment. While so, the claim for higher scale of pay is unsustainable.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr.S.Muthukrishnan for Mr.M.Sridhar would oppose by stating that Union approached the Labour Court in I.D.No.147 of 1993 and an award was passed by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli on 07.11.1996. Based on the said award, the pay scale of Rs.610/- was granted to a set of employees. Therefore, the said benefit is to be extended to the respondents. He also submits that the Division Bench of Madurai Bench has passed an order in favour of similarly placed employees like that of
