G H P. SINGARAVELAN & ORS. ETC. ETC versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPPUR AND DT & ORS. ETC. ETC. on 18 December 2019

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 15 S.C.R.

A

P. SINGARAVELAN & ORS. ETC. ETC.

v.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPPURAND DT & ORS. ETC. ETC.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 9533-9537 of 2019)

B

DECEMBER 18, 2019

[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ANDKRISHNA MURARI. JJ.]

CService Law: Pay-scales – Claim of – Selection Grade andSpecial Grade of pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000respectively in terms of GOMs 162 – Grant of said pay scales toaround 3000 drivers by various decisions rendered by the HighCourt and this Court – Appellants-drivers in various departmentsof Government of Tamil Nadu, claiming parity – High CourtDrejected the claim of the appellants – On appeal, held: Personcannot invoke Art. 14 to claim a benefit extended to someonesimilarly placed if he is not lawfully entitled to such benefit in thefirst place – Art. 14 embodies the concept of positive equality alone,and not negative equality – On facts, apart from claiming paritywith similarly placed individuals, the appellants unable to justifyEtheir entitlement to the Selection Grade and Special Grade payscales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 – However, onperusing the series of revisions made to the pay scales applicableto drivers employed with the State Government, the applicable payscales for the Selection Grade and Special Grade would be Rs.F4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively – Thus, appellants notlawfully entitled to the claim Selection Grade and Special Gradepay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively, solelyon the strength of earlier decisions of the High Court – Interferencewith the order of the High Court not called for – Constitution ofIndia – Art. 14.

G

Constitution of India: Art. 14 – Equality – Relief on thestrength of Art. 14 – Claim of – Held: A person cannot invoke Art.14 to claim a benefit extended to someone similarly placed if he isnot lawfully entitled to such benefit in the first place – Article 14embodies the concept of positive equality alone, and not negativeH

equality – Art. 14 cannot be relied upon to perpetuate an illegalityor irregularity – Thus, the jurisdiction of a higher court cannotbe invoked on the basis of a wrong order passed by a lower forum.

Judgments/orders: Non-speaking order – Effect of – Held:All the orders passed by this Court were non-speaking orders,inasmuch as they were confined to a mere refusal to grant specialleave to appeal to the petitioners therein – Dismissal of an SLPagainst an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmationof the same – If such an order of this Court is non-speaking, itdoes not constitute a declaration of law u/Art. 141 of theConstitution, or attract the doctrine of merger.

Judicial Discipline: Adjudication of proceedings by the HighCourt – Parameters to be followed – High Court differed from theview taken previously by a coordinate Bench based on amisreading of the same – Held: In such a situation the High Courtshould not have proceeded to decide the matter by itself – In theinterest of judicial discipline, the High Court should instead havereferred the matter to larger Bench for its consideration –Reference to larger Bench.

Partly allowing Civil Appeals @ SLPs [Diary No. 42301/2017] and dismissing all the other appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is evident that all the orders passed by thisCourt were non-speaking orders, inasmuch as they were confinedto a mere refusal to grant special leave to appeal to thepetitioners therein. It is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLPagainst an order or judgment of a lower forum is not anaffirmation of the same. If such an order of this Court is non-speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law under Article141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger. [Para7] [415-H; 416-A-B]

1.2 The Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 and theDivision Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 both set aside theorder dated 01.10.2007 based on the fact that the claimed higherpay scales had already been granted and were still beingreceived by certain other drivers in several government A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adepartments, as per G.O. Ms. No. 162. Further, and moreimportantly, it was held that the letter dated 31.12.1998 whereinsuch higher pay scale fixations were deemed to be erroneous,would not have the effect of reducing the entitlement of drivers,as such a letter could not act as a substitute for modification ofthe G.O. itself. Thus, even though the Court did not give anyBexpress direction to grant the higher pay scales as per SerialNo. 8 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules, the same was implicit inthe Court’s directions for fixing the pay scales in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 162. In other words, it cannot be said that the HighCourt in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 did not affirm the drivers’ claimCthat they were entitled to the higher Selection and Special Gradepay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively.However, in the impugned judgment, the High Court onlyfocused on the fact that the conclusion reached by the coordinate Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 was for appropriate fixationDof pay scales under G.O. Ms. No. 162 only, and there was nospecific direction for grant of the Selection Grade and SpecialGrade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000respectively. On this basis, the High Court proceeded todetermine the question of pay scale entitlement and took a viewdiametrically opposite to that of the coordinate Bench in W.A.ENos. 383-391/2009, finding that the Appellant-drivers were onlyentitled to the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales ofRs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively. Such an approachis based on a narrow reading of the decision of the coordinateBench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, as it fails to appreciate theFimplicit direction in this order to grant the higher pay scales tothe drivers. Thus, it appears that the High Court differed fromthe view taken previously by a coordinate Bench based on amisreading of the same. In such a situation, once it was foundby the High Court that it was in disagreement with the holdingof its coordinate Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, it should notGhave proceeded to decide the matter by itself, and in the interestof judicial discipline, should instead have referred the matter toa larger Bench for its consideration. Be that as it may, in theinterest of expeditious disposal of the matter, it is not fit toremand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration atHthis stage. [Para 18.1, 18.2, 19] [422-B-H; 423-A-B]

1.3 Apart from claiming parity with similarly placedindividuals, the appellants have been unable to justify how andwhy they are entitled to the Selection Grade and Special Gradepay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 as specified inSerial No. 8 of Schedule II to the 1998 Rules, in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 162. On the other hand, on perusing the series ofrevisions made to the pay scales applicable to drivers employedwith the State Government, the applicable pay scales for theSelection Grade and Special Grade would be as per Serial No. 6of Schedule II to the 1998 Rules, i.e. Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs.4300-6000 respectively. [Para 20] [423-C-D]

1.4 The pay scales of the appellants can be traced back toG.O. Ms. No. 666, Finance dated 27.06.1989, by which the StateGovernment issued the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of PayRules, 1989, implementing the recommendations of the V[th] TamilNadu Pay Commission. Under these rules, the original andrevised pay scales of 30 common categories of posts werespecified. The scale of pay for drivers was mentioned at SerialNo. 11 in the first part of the Schedule to these rules, havingbeen revised from Rs. 610-1075 to Rs. 950-1500. The nextrevision came through G.O. Ms. No. 818, Finance, dated09.09.1989, whereby drivers’ pay scale was increased to Rs. 975-1660. Later, under G.O. Ms. No. 304, Finance dated 28.03.1990,Special Grade and Selection Grade scales of pay were introducedfor persons who had completed 10 years and 20 years of servicerespectively. For the post of drivers carrying the Ordinary Gradepay scale of Rs. 975-1660, the Selection and Special Gradebrackets were set as Rs. 1200-2040 and Rs. 1320-2040respectively. Finally, when the 1998 Rules were introducedthrough G.O. Ms. No. 162, the post-wise determination of payscales was replaced by a pay scale-to-pay scale basisdetermination. As already seen in Schedule I of the said rules,the pay scale of Rs. 975-1660 applicable to drivers was revisedto Rs. 3200-4900. For this, the corresponding Selection andSpecial Grades specified in Schedule II were Rs. 4000-6000 andRs. 4300-6000 respectively. [Para 20.1-20.3] [423-D-H; 424-A]

1.5 There is substance in the submission of therespondents that the appellants are not lawfully entitled to the AB

C

D

EF

G

H

[2019] 15 S.C.R.

Aclaimed Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively in terms of G.O. Ms.No. 162. [Para 21] [424-B]

1.6 The High Court in the impugned judgment was correctin concluding that the appellants cannot claim such relief on theBstrength of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, when once ithas been found that they are not lawfully entitled to the same.It is well-settled by now that a person cannot invoke Article 14to claim a benefit extended to someone similarly placed if he isnot lawfully entitled to such benefit in the first place. Article 14Cembodies the concept of positive equality alone, and not negativeequality, that is to say, it cannot be relied upon to perpetuate anillegality or irregularity. In fact, this Court has opined that thisprinciple extends to orders passed by judicial fora as well. Thus,the jurisdiction of a higher court cannot be invoked on the basisof a wrong order passed by a lower forum. [Para 23] [424-D-E]DBasawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC81 : [2013] 8 SCR 227 ; State of Odisha v. AnupKumar Senapati (2019) 12 SCALE 386 – referred to.

1.7 The appellants cannot claim the Selection Grade andESpecial Grade scales of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000respectively, solely on the strength of earlier decisions of theHigh Court, without showing how they, themselves, are entitledto such benefit in the first place. In such a situation, theappellants can only be granted the benefit of the Selection Gradeand Special Grade scales of pay to which they are lawfully entitledFin terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162, i.e. Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively. There is no reason to interfere with theimpugned judgment. [Para 24, 25] [424-D-F]

2. As regards Civil Appeals @ SLPs [Diary No. 42301/2017], the drivers concerned were not entitled to anyGpromotional avenues. Thus, it is evident that the High Courtrightly concluded that the drivers were entitled to the fullbenefits of the appropriate pay scale under Schedule II of the1998 Rules. However, in light of the finding that personsemployed in the post of drivers in various departments in theHGovernment of Tamil Nadu are only entitled to Ordinary, AB

Selection and Special Grade pay scales in terms of Serial No. 6of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules, i.e. at Rs. 3200-4900, Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively, there is no hesitation tohold that the High Court erred in directing fixation of such payscales to drivers employed at the High Court in terms of SerialNo. 8 of the Schedule II, fixing Selection Grade and SpecialGrade scales of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000respectively. The State Government is directed to fix the payscale benefits available to the Respondents in the instant appealsin terms of Serial No. 6 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules underG.O. Ms. No. 162 [Para 5, 6] [426-E-G]

C

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359 ;Khoday Distilleries v. Sri Mahadeshwara SahakaraSakkare Karkhane Ltd. (2019) 4 SCC 376 – referredto.

CASE LAW REFERENCE

E

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 9533-9537 of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 08.07.2015 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Madras in W.A. Nos. 2073, 1605, 30359, 33869and 291 of 2013.

F

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 9538-9546, 9547-9549, 9551-9559, 9560-9561of 2019.

G

Vijay Narayan, Adv. Gen., Balaji Srinivasan, AAG,Basava Prabhu S. Patil, K.N. Basha, Sr. Advs., Ms. GarimaJain, C. Vigneswaran, T. R. B. Sivakumar, M. Ravi, Joseph Aristotle,Ms. Priya Aristotle, Ms. Sneha, Chinmay Deshpande, B. Karunakaran,Nikhil Swami, Ms. A. Jaswanthi, Ms. Purbitaa Mitra, K. V.Vijayakumar, S. Gowthaman, Vinodh Kanna B., Lenin Rajasehar, H

AM. Yogesh Kanna, S. Raja Rajeshwaran, B. Balaji,A. Lakshminarayanan, Gautam Narayan, Ms. Asmita Singh, AdithyaNair, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.BCIVILAPPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5395-5399 OF2016; CIVILAPPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5605-5613 OF2016; CCIVILAPPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5391-5393 OF2016, AND

CIVILAPPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5367-5375 OF2016

1. Leave granted.D

2. These appeals have been filed against the common finaljudgment and order dated 08.07.2015 passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Madras allowing writ appeals filed by the Respondentsherein, being state authorities, and dismissing writ petitions filed by theAppellants herein, being drivers in various departments of theEGovernment of Tamil Nadu, with respect to the Selection Grade andSpecial Grade scales of pay applicable to them.

3. The Appellants, in a nutshell, are claiming the grant of SelectionGrade 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,FFinance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 (for short “G.O. Ms.No. 162”), which has been granted to around 3000 similarly placedemployees. The Appellants place reliance on various decisions renderedby this Court and the High Court of Madras in several writ petitionsand appeals granting similar pay scales to the petitioners therein. Thus,Git is argued that the impugned judgment of the High Court haserroneously differed from the consistent view taken in these decisions.

4. On the other hand, the Respondents argue in favour of theimpugned judgment, claiming that the initial grant of the claimed payscale to some drivers (out of which the entire cluster of litigations arose)Hwas merely on account of an error on the part of officials in some

P. SINGARAVELAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,TIRUPPUR AND DT [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]

government departments. Thus, it is submitted that the applicable scalesof pay are Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively for theSelection Grade and Special Grade.

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

6. Be that as it may, it must be noted that all the above ordersof this Court were passed at the stage of admission itself. Even theorder dated 25.02.2015, passed by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court whiledealing with a batch of appeals having SLP (C) No. 35969/2009 as thelead 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-speakingorders, inasmuch as they were confined to a mere refusal to grant A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aspecial leave to appeal to the petitioners therein. At this juncture, it isuseful to recall that it is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLP againstan order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of the same.If such an order of this Court is non-speaking, it does not constitute adeclaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, or attract thedoctrine of merger. The following discussion on this proposition inBKunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, is relevant inthis regard:

“(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an orderpassed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superiorforum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms theCdecision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinateforum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is thelatter which subsists, remains operative and is capable ofenforcement in the eye of law.

(ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the ConstitutionDis divisible into two stages. The first stage is upto the disposal ofprayer for special leave to file an appeal. The second stagecommences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and thespecial leave petition is converted into an appeal.

(iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal orEunlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdictionexercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matterof challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinativeof the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should becapable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issueFbefore it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Courtmay reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or orderappealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and notwhile exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petitionfor special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can thereforebe applied to the former and not to the latter.

G

(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attractthe doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appealdoes not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge.All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exerciseHits discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.

(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order i.e.gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order hastwo implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in theorder is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within themeaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other thanthe declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are thefindings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind theparties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in anyproceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, theSupreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, thisdoes not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal orauthority below has stood merged in the order of the SupremeCourt rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of theSupreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata insubsequent proceedings between the parties.

(vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellatejurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been invoked the orderpassed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the ordermay be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation.

(vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seekingleave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before theSupreme Court the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain areview petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub-rule (1) ofOrder 47 Rule 1 CPC.”

This view has also been adopted in a plethora of decisions ofthis Court, including the recent decision in Khoday Distilleries v. SriMahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC376.

8. Applying these observations to the present case, it is clear thatthere has been no pronouncement by this Court constituting the law ofthe land as to the interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 162. In such a situation,it is open for us to proceed to decide the instant appeals uninfluencedby the prior orders of this Court dismissing SLPs against the grant ofrelief to drivers placed similarly as the Appellants herein.

9. It is evident that the entire controversy in this case hinges onthe interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 162. Vide this order, the Tamil Nadu AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ARevised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 (for short “the 1998 Rules”) werenotified, revising 25 standard pay scales on a pay scale-to-pay scalebasis for State Government employees and teachers. While ScheduleI to the 1998 Rules indicated the revised pay scales, Schedule II specifiedthe Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales applicable for eachrevised Ordinary Grade. Further, it was stated in paragraph 4 of theBG.O. that for posts with no promotional avenues, the Selection Gradeand Special Grade scales as indicated in Schedule II would beapplicable.

10. It is not in dispute that drivers in various departments of theCGovernment of Tamil Nadu were entitled to revised Ordinary Gradepay scales as per Schedule I. Further, since they did not have anypromotional avenues, Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scalesunder Schedule II would become applicable as and when they completed10 and 20 years of service respectively. The dispute here lies withrespect to the entries under Schedules I and II applicable to the postDof drivers. It is the submission of the Respondents that prior to therevision of pay scales under the 1998 Rules, drivers were entitled tothe pay scale of Rs. 975-1660 as determined by G.O. No. 818, Finance,dated 09.09.1989. Accordingly, the corresponding revised OrdinaryGrade pay scale under Schedule I of the 1998 Rules would be as perEEntry No. XX below:

SCHEDULE -I

LIST OF PAY SCALES

SCHEDULE -I

LIST OF PAY SCALES

P. SINGARAVELAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,TIRUPPUR AND DT [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]

(emphasis added)

11. Relying on this, the Respondents submit that the drivers areentitled to a revised Ordinary Grade pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900 only.As regards the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scalesapplicable, the Respondents claim that the Appellants are entitled to payscales of Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively as per SerialNo. 6 of Schedule II, which is corresponding to Entry No. XX ofSchedule I. On the other hand, the Appellants claim that they are entitledto the revised Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively as per Serial No. 8 ofSchedule II. It would be useful to refer to Schedule II in this regard:

D

E

SCHEDULE - II

REVISED SELECTION GRADE AND SPECIAL GRADE

F

SCALE OF PAY

G

H

12. Indeed, the genesis of the entire dispute lies in the fixationCof Selection and Special Grade pay scales of certain drivers by certainlocal departments as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule II. Pursuant to this,the Joint Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, issuedLetter No. 96900/PC/98-2 dated 31.12.1998 to all Secretaries to theGovernment and Heads of Department, on the basis that such fixationsDwere erroneous and needed to be reviewed, with a direction to effectrecoveries wherever excess payments had been made.

13. In 2006, the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(E) Department rejected the representation of the Tamil NaduGovernment Department Drivers’ Central Association seeking fixationof Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales at Rs. 5000-8000 andERs. 5500-9000 respectively, vide the proceedings in Lr. No. 13921/K/2005-1 dated 25.04.2006. This was challenged by the drivers’association before the High Court in W.P. No. 34800 of 2006, whichwas allowed on the ground that the said proceedings did not refer toG.O. Ms. No. 162. The association was directed to make a freshFrepresentation before the Finance Department, to be decided inaccordance with G.O. Ms. No. 162.

14. Such representation, however, was also rejected by theFinance Department vide letter No. 63685/CMPC/2006-1, dated01.10.2007, which states as follows:

G

“3. Therefore, the Drivers are entitled for the Selection Grade /Special Grade scales of pay as ordered in Schedule-II of G.O.Ms. No. 162, Finance (PC) Department, dated 13-4-98, basedon the ordinary grade scale of pay granted to the posts ofDrivers. As such all categories on par with Drivers in the OrdinaryHGrade of Rs.3200-4900 are entitled for the Selection Grade of Rs.4000-6000 and Special Grade of Rs.4300-6000 respectively.The above Government Order has been issued based on therecommendations of the Official Committee, 1998 and theDrivers are not denied the benefits ordered in the GovernmentOrder cited. Hence, your request has no merit to consider asrequested.”

15. A batch of writ petitions challenging the above order wassubsequently filed before the High Court. These writ petitions wereallowed by the High Court vide judgment dated 30.09.2008 in W.P. No.4288/2008 and connected matters thereto, with a direction for thefixation of pay scales in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 162. This wasaffirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment dated01.09.2009 in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009.

16. Subsequently, several other writ petitions were filed by othersimilarly situated drivers seeking the benefit of the same higher payscale. These petitions were also allowed on the basis of the previousdecisions discussed above, with the notable exceptions of the judgmentdated 18.11.2013 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in W.P.No. 1418/2001 and matters connected thereto, and the impugnedjudgment herein.

17. Concluding that the drivers were not entitled to the higherclaimed pay scales, these two judgments differed from the consistentview taken in the preceding judgments and orders based on a scrutinyof G.O. Ms. No. 162 and the prior history of pay scales payable to thedrivers. They justified differing from the decisions of the DivisionBenches of the High Court on the premise that there was no specificdirection by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 (supra),or the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, granting the SelectionGrade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively. With respect to subsequent writ petitions grantingthese higher pay scales, it was noted that they had been disposed of atthe admission stage itself (in some cases even without notice to thegovernment) and could thus be disregarded.

18. Given this departure in the impugned judgment from theconsistent view taken by prior coordinate Benches of the High Court,it is necessary to ascertain whether the High Court should have insteadreferred the matter to a larger Bench for consideration. This merits acloser reading of the decisions of the Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 (supra) and of the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AAs discussed above, the principal issue before the Courts in thesedecisions was the validity of the order dated 01.10.2007 passed by theFinance Department rejecting the claim of the drivers’ association forSelection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 andRs. 5500-9000 respectively.

B18.1 The Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 (supra) and theDivision Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 both set aside the orderdated 01.10.2007 based on the fact that the claimed higher pay scaleshad already been granted and were still being received by certain otherdrivers in several government departments, as per G.O. Ms. No. 162.Further, and more importantly, it was held that the letter datedC31.12.1998 wherein such higher pay scale fixations were deemed tobe erroneous, would not have the effect of reducing the entitlement ofdrivers, as such a letter could not act as a substitute for modificationof the G.O. itself. Thus, even though the Court did not give any expressdirection to grant the higher pay scales as per Serial No. 8 of ScheduleII of the 1998 Rules, we find that the same was implicit in the Court’sDdirections for fixing the pay scales in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162. Inother words, it cannot be said that the High Court in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 did not affirm the drivers’ claim that they were entitled tothe higher Selection and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively.E18.2 However, in the impugned judgment, the High Court onlyfocused on the fact that the conclusion reached by the coordinate Benchin W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 was for appropriate fixation of pay scalesunder G.O. Ms. No. 162 only, and there was no specific direction forgrant of the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively. On this basis, the High CourtFproceeded to determine the question of pay scale entitlement and tooka view diametrically opposite to that of the coordinate Bench in W.A.Nos. 383-391/2009, finding that the Appellant-drivers were only entitledto the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 4000-6000and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively. In our considered opinion, such anGapproach is based on a narrow reading of the decision of the coordinateBench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, as it fails to appreciate the implicitdirection in this order to grant the higher pay scales to the drivers, asmentioned supra. Thus, it appears that the High Court differed fromthe view taken previously by a coordinate Bench based on a misreadingof the same. In such a situation, once it was found by the High CourtHthat it was in disagreement with the holding of its coordinate Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, it should not have proceeded to decide thematter by itself, and in the interest of judicial discipline, should insteadhave referred the matter to a larger Bench for its consideration.

19. Be that as it may, in the interest of expeditious disposal ofthe matter, we do not deem it fit to remand the matter to the High Courtfor fresh consideration at this stage. Thus, we shall proceed to decideit on merits accordingly.

20. In our considered opinion, apart from claiming parity withsimilarly placed individuals, the Appellants have been unable to justifyhow and why they are entitled to the Selection Grade and Special Gradepay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 as specified in SerialNo. 8 of Schedule II to the 1998 Rules, in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162.On the other hand, on perusing the series of revisions made to the payscales applicable to drivers employed with the State Government, wefind that the applicable pay scales for the Selection Grade and SpecialGrade would be as per Serial No. 6 of Schedule II to the 1998 Rules,i.e. Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively.

20.1 As the High Court has also noted in the impugned judgment,the pay scales of the Appellants can be traced back to G.O. Ms. No.666, Finance dated 27.06.1989, by which the State Government issuedthe Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989, implementing therecommendations of the V[th] Tamil Nadu Pay Commission. Under theserules, the original and revised pay scales of 30 common categories ofposts were specified. The scale of pay for drivers was mentioned atSerial No. 11 in the first part of the Schedule to these rules, havingbeen revised from Rs. 610-1075 to Rs. 950-1500.

20.2 The next revision came through G.O. Ms. No. 818, Finance,dated 09.09.1989, whereby drivers’ pay scale was increased to Rs. 975-1660. Later, under G.O. Ms. No. 304, Finance dated 28.03.1990, SpecialGrade and Selection Grade scales of pay were introduced for personswho had completed 10 years and 20 years of service respectively. Forthe post of drivers carrying the Ordinary Grade pay scale of Rs. 975-1660, the Selection and Special Grade brackets were set as Rs. 1200-2040 and Rs. 1320-2040 respectively.

20.3 Finally, when the 1998 Rules were introduced through G.O.Ms. No. 162, the post-wise determination of pay scales was replacedby a pay scale-to-pay scale basis determination. As already seen inSchedule I of the said rules, the pay scale of Rs. 975-1660 applicable A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato drivers was revised to Rs. 3200-4900. For this, the correspondingSelection and Special Grades specified in Schedule II were Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively.

21. Against this backdrop, we find substance in the submissionof the Respondents that the Appellants are not lawfully entitled to theBclaimed Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162.

22. The only question to be settled, therefore, is whether theAppellants are entitled to claim parity with the drivers who have so farbeen granted benefits vide the orders of the High Court and this Court,as mentioned supra in paragraph 5.C

23. In this respect, we find that the High Court in the impugnedjudgment was correct in concluding that the Appellants cannot claimsuch relief on the strength of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,when once it has been found that they are not lawfully entitled to thesame. It is well-settled by now that a person cannot invoke Article 14Dto claim a benefit extended to someone similarly placed if he is notlawfully entitled to such benefit in the first place. Article 14 embodiesthe concept of positive equality alone, and not negative equality, that isto say, it cannot be relied upon to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity.In fact, this Court has opined that this principle extends to orders passedEby judicial fora as well. Thus, the jurisdiction of a higher court cannotbe invoked on the basis of a wrong order passed by a lower forum. Inthis respect, it would be fruitful to refer to the following passage fromthe decision of this Court in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer,(2013) 14 SCC 81:

“8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of theFConstitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, evenby extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The saidprovision does not envisage negative equality but has only apositive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons havebeen granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake,Gsuch an order does not confer any legal right on others to getthe same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earliercase, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannotbe claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by acitizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality andirregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or aHgroup of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial

forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher orsuperior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularityor illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any otherparty to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Evenotherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwiseit would make functioning of administration impossible.(Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [(1995) 1 SCC 745 :AIR 1995 SC 705], Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State ofHaryana [(2005) 9 SCC 164 : AIR 2005 SC 565] , K.K.Bhalla v. State of M.P. [(2006) 3 SCC 581 : AIR 2006 SC 898]and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab [(2010) 11 SCC 455 : AIR2010 SC 1937].)”

This proposition was also recently affirmed by a 3-Judge Benchof this Court in State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati (CivilAppeal No. 7295/2019, judgment dated 16.09.2019).

24. Thus, it is evident that the Appellants cannot claim theSelection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 andRs. 5500-9000 respectively, solely on the strength of earlier decisionsof the High Court, without showing how they, themselves, are entitledto such benefit in the first place. In such a situation, we are of theconsidered view that the Appellants can only be granted the benefit ofthe Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay to which they arelawfully entitled in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162, i.e. Rs. 4000-6000 andRs. 4300-6000 respectively.

25. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, we find noreason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The instant appealsare hereby dismissed, and the impugned judgment is confirmed.

CIVIL APPEALS @ SLPs [Diary No. 42301/2017]

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu,represented by its Principal Secretary, Finance (Pay Cell) Departmentagainst the judgment and order dated 05.01.2015 of the High Court ofMadras in W.P. No. 2363 of 2013, and the final judgment and orderdated 11.09.2017 dismissing Review Application No. 153 of 2016against the same, with respect to the pay scale entitlements of certaindrivers employed by the High Court of Madras in terms of G.O. Ms.No. 162.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A3. These appeals arise out of virtually the same factualbackground as those disposed of above. W.P. No. 2363 of 2013 wasfiled by the concerned drivers employed with the High Court of Madras,seeking quashing of paragraph 5 of Letter No. 63305/Pay Cell/2010-1dated 08.11.2010 issued by the State Government, on which basis theGovernment had denied them the benefit of Selection and Special GradeBpay scales as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules underG.O. Ms. No. 162. The petitioners therein also sought a direction tothe State Government for appropriate fixation of pay scales in the aboveterms.

4. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition on the groundCthat the drivers were not entitled to any promotional avenues, and hencewere entitled to the full benefits of the appropriate pay scale underSchedule II of the 1998 Rules. It was further found that the driverswere entitled to benefits under Serial No. 8 of the said schedule, lookingto the disposal of similar matters by the High Court and this Court. The review application filed against the same also came to be dismissed byDthe High Court.

5. As discussed supra, it has not been disputed before us thatthe drivers concerned were not entitled to any promotional avenues.Thus, it is evident that the High Court rightly concluded that the driverswere entitled to the full benefits of the appropriate pay scale underESchedule II of the 1998 Rules. However, in light of our foregoing findingthat persons employed in the post of drivers in various departments inthe Government of Tamil Nadu are only entitled to Ordinary, Selectionand Special Grade pay scales in terms of Serial No. 6 of Schedule IIof the 1998 Rules, i.e. at Rs. 3200-4900, Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively, we have no hesitation to hold that the High CourtFerred in directing fixation of such pay scales to drivers employed atthe High Court in terms of Serial No. 8 of the Schedule II, fixingSelection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 andRs. 5500-9000 respectively.

6. The appeals are therefore allowed partly, to the extent thatGthe State Government is directed to fix the pay scale benefits availableto the Respondents in the instant appeals in terms of Serial No. 6 ofSchedule II of the 1998 Rules under G.O. Ms. No. 162.

H

Nidhi Jain