Gabriel Saver Fernandes And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors
- Neutral1994 INSC 353
- SCR[1994] Supp (3) SCR 105
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A government may make a distinction in pay scales between employees holding the same designation but possessing different educational qualifications (SSLC versus non-SSLC), and such differentiation based on qualifications does not constitute invidious discrimination warranting equal pay. Where an employee has already received and been paid a higher scale of pay during service and has since retired, the government cannot recover the salary already disbursed merely because the employee was not entitled to that scale, notwithstanding that the employee may not have satisfied the qualification criteria for that scale.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted.
It is contended for the appellants that as per the directions, issued by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1173/62, dated March 4, 1965, the High. Court had struct down the rules holding that there cannot be any distinction between the Talatis and Village Accountants. They cannot be clubbed together and they constitute different categories and that, there- fore, they are entitled to separate scales of pay. When they claimed the scale of pay on the basis of revised pay scales at Rs. 90-200 instead of Rs, 80-145, the Tribunal has committed illegality in not considering the distinction and that therefore, the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the payment of scale of pay of Rs, 90-200 as per 1970 Rules w.e.f. January 1, 1970.
It would appear that the Government made a distinction between Talatis and Village Accountants who possessed SSLC qualification and those who are non- SSLC candidates. For the candidates who are having SSLC qualification, pay scale of Rs. 90-200 has been provided for. Admittedly, the appellants are not in that category as they are non-SSLC candidates. The Government, therefore, thought it expedient to make a distinction between qualified and unqualified persons and prescribed different scales of pay. Hence, we do not find any invidious discrimination made between the two categories to club together and grant them same scale of pay of Rs, 90-200. However, since the appellants have already been paid the scale of pay of Rs. 90-200 while they were in service and are retired now, it would be appropriate that the Government may not recover from Diem the salary which they had already received though they are not to the scale of pay of Rs. 90-200.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No Costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free