State Of Haryana & Anr vs Dharam Singh & Ors
- SCC(2009) 4 SCC 340
- Neutral2009 INSC 117
- SCR[2009] 1 SCR 979
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a public servant has already received the pay scale of a higher post prior to regular promotion to that post—whether as a personal measure or on account of acquired qualifications—a subsequent regular promotion order that merely regularizes their position in that pay scale does not entitle them to claim an additional increment on the occasion of promotion. To grant such an increment would constitute an impermissible double benefit, as the employee has already benefited from the higher pay scale earlier. The court cannot allow the creation of an anomalous position against statutory rules merely because the Government failed to correct an earlier irregular grant of higher pay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
State of Haryana and Anr. ....Appellants
Versus
Dharam Singh & Ors. ....Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the
1 respondents. The High Court relied on an earlier decision rendered by it in
Civil Writ Petition No.15157 of 1998.
3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the directions given by the High Court to consider the case of the
respondents for grant of one increment on account of promotion to the next
higher rank has no legal basis. It is pointed out that the respondents claim
was for promotional increments. The writ petitioners claimed promotional
increments on the basis that they were working as J.B.T. teachers and were
promoted to the post of Headmaster on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
They have already received the same higher pay scale of the Headmaster as
a personal measure, prior to being promoted and without performing the
dues of higher responsibility at that stage. Strong reliance was placed on a
decision of this Court in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Partap Singh and Ors.
(2006 (10) SCC 251).
4. The ratio in that decision is as follows:
"The respondents were already getting the
functional pay of Masters while working as JBT
teachers. Because of regular promotion order being
2 issued for the post of Masters, it only amounted to
regularization of the pay scale which they were already
drawing i.e. pay scale of Masters. Thus, granting of one
more increment because of regularization of the
respondents by promoting them to the post of Masters,
would not entitle them to the double benefit; though they
have already got one increment on acquiring the higher
educational qualifications and now on regular promotion
being given in the Masters' pay scale in which they were
already working, they cannot claim another benefit.
Under Rule 4.4 it could have been possible to grant them
fixation if they were continuing in the old scale of JBT
teachers and on their promotion to the post of Master,
then certainly they would have been entitled to fixation
of pay giving them the initial pay the stage of timescale
next above their substantive pay in respect of the old
post. But they are already fixed in the pay scale of
higher post of Master which though legitimately they
were not entitled to because of the change in the policy
but they continued in the higher pay scale despite the
3 change in the policy and the Government did not take
any further steps to put the house in proper order. Be
that as it may, since the respondents were drawing the
higher pay scale on acquiring of higher educational
qualifications i.e. the Master's pay scale, and now only
regular orders have been passed, promoting them as
Master, there is no question of again fixing them next
above their substantive pay in respect of the old post.
They are not holding the old post any more and they
were not drawing the salary of JBT teachers i.e. the old
post. Therefore, there is no question of granting them
the initial pay the stage of timescale next above their
substantive pay in respect of the old post. Judicial fiat
cannot create anomalous position against the statute."
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that
Pratap Singh's case (supra) has no relevance and it is factually
distinguishable.
6. The factual scenario has been spelt out above.
4
7. The High Court came to an abrupt conclusion regarding entitlement
relying on an earlier decision without indicating as to how the factual
scenario was similar.
8. In the aforesaid background, we deem it fit to remit the matter to the
High Court to consider the applicability and relevance of Pratap Singh's
case (supra) to the facts of the present case and to decide the matter afresh.
9. We request the High Court to dispose of the matter as early as
practicable. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
......................................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
.................................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi February 06, 2009
5
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