Back
2010 (6) Supreme 369
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
State of West Bengal — Appellant
versus
Subhas Kumar Chatterjee & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5538 of 2008
Decided on : 17-8-2010
(2007) 7 SCC 472; (2002) 6 SCC 72 – Relied upon
(b) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Sections 14, 15 and 16 – Practices of directing applications filed before the Tribunals to be treated as representations before the executive authorities for their decision on merits – Such delegation of power apart from being illegal and unconstitutional amounts to avoidance of constitutional duties and functions to decide such disputes which are exclusively entrusted to the Tribunals by law. (Para 19)
(c) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Sections 14, 15 and 16 – Administrative Tribunals cannot create and constitute any quasi-judicial authorities and entrust matters for their decision which otherwise are not within their jurisdiction – Tribunals by their own act cannot delegate the power to decide any dispute which in law is required to be decided exclusively by such Tribunals. (Paras 22 and 23)
(d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 11 – The Chief Engineer not acting in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity- He did not adjudicate any lis between parties before him – Administrative decisions do not operate as res judicata. (Para 25)
(e) Constitution of India – Article 226 – No Mandamus lies for issuing directions to a Government to refrain from enforcing a provision of law. (Para 26)
Facts of the case:
1. The controversy involved in the present matter requiring resolution centers around the issue as to whether the Senior Laboratory Assistants in the Roads and Buildings Research Institute and various other divisions under the Public Works (Roads) Department, Government of West Bengal are entitled to the same pay scale at par with the Research Assistants in the same department?
2. This appeal also raises the question whether the Chief Engineer, Public Works (Roads) Directorate was competent to modify or amend ROPA Rules.
Finding of the Court:
Under the statutory rules the respondents are entitled to only scale no. 9.
The order of the Administrative Tribunal directing the Chief Engineer, Public Works (Roads) Directorate to decide the dispute raised by the respondents with regard to their pay scales is void ab initio and cannot be given effect to.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The tribunal’s direction to treat OA as a representation and to decide on merits was void ab initio for improper delegation of power (!) . - Administrative Tribunals cannot delegate their jurisdiction to executive authorities or create quasi-judicial bodies outside their statutory scope (!) (!) . - Administrative decisions do not operate as res judicata and cannot bind courts; Chief Engineer’s orders cannot override statutory rules (!) (!) . - Pay scales are fixed under statutory rules (ROPA Rules) framed under Article 309, and courts cannot compel adherence to or deviation from those rules based on tribunal orders (!) (!) . - Mandamus cannot direct the government to act contrary to law or to refrain from enforcing statutory provisions (!) . - Courts should avoid declaring a fixed pay scale and instructing implementation; equation of posts and salaries is for expert bodies and executive discretion (!) . - The judgment sets aside the tribunal and high court orders that conflicted with statutory pay rules and pay commissions recommendations (!) (!) . - The constitutional validity of the statutory pay rules under which pay scales are fixed has not been challenged; government fixes scales per rules and pay commissions recommendations are not binding on the state (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. —
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the final judgment and order dated 19th December, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in W.P.S.T No. 33 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the High Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the State of West Bengal, appellant herein and confirmed the judgment and order dated 18th August, 2005 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, West Bengal.
2. In order to consider the question as to whether the judgment suffers from any infirmities requiring our interference, it may be just and necessary to notice the relevant facts.
3. The controversy involved in the present matter requiring resolution centers around the issue as to whether the Senior Laboratory Assistants in the Roads and Buildings Research Institute and various other divisions under the Public Works (Roads) Department, Government of West Bengal are entitled to the same pay scale at par with the Research Assistants in the same department?
4. On 4th July, 1972 the Government of West Bengal, in exercise of its power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India made the Rules for regulation of recruitment to the post of Senior Research Assistant, Research Assistant and Senior Laboratory Assistant in the Roads and Buildings Research Institute and various other divisions under the Public Works (Roads) Department. The post of Senior Laboratory Assistant is a feeder to the post of Research Assistant. The pay scale fixed under the Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules, 1981 ( for short ROPA Rules) for the post of Research Assistant was scale no. 9 ( Rs. 300-910) and for the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant scale no. 6 (Rs. 300-685).
5. In the year 1982, three Senior Laboratory Assistants filed a Writ Petition in the Calcutta High Court claiming scale no. 11 under ROPA Rules on the allegation that they were performing similar duties as that of Senior Research Assistants. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the High Court granting scale no. 11 as claimed by the writ petitioners therein vide judgment dated 25th November, 1987. Be it noted that the said writ petition was disposed of on the doctrine of non-traverse since the State Government was unrepresented and no affidavit filed on its behalf. However, the learned Judge granted relief directing the said pay scale to be paid w.e.f 1st April, 1981 but, directed that the petitioners therein would be entitled to arrears only w.e.f April, 1987. The State was also directed to place the matter before the 3rd Pay Commission so that the Commission could consider the case of the Senior Laboratory Assistants for higher scale duly taking into consideration their qualifications and duties.
6. On 30th June 1987, 3rd Pay Commission for the State of West Bengal was constituted to consider the revision of pay and emoluments of its employees. The Commission submitted its report in December, 1988, granting only scale 6 (revised to Rs. 1040-1920) to the Senior Laboratory Assistants and scale 9 (revised to Rs. 1260-2610) for the Research Assistants. The State Government having accepted the recommendations framed ROPA Rules, 1990 allowing scale nos. 6 and 9 respectively to the Senior Laboratory Assistants and Research Assistants. The 4th Pay Commission retained the same pay scales. However, the pay structure was revised. The State Government accordingly framed ROPA Rules, 1998.
7. The respondents herein who are the Research Assistants approached the Tribunal after a period of more than 12 years claiming revision of scale of pay and fixation of benefits w.e.f 1st April, 1981 in scale no. 14. Their case essentially was based upon the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2893W of 1982 granting scale no. 11 to Senior Laboratory Assistant which was the feeder post to the Research Assistant and therefore, the Research Assistants were entitled to the proportionate hike in
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
