Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  9015  OF 2013  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4692 of 2010)

G.L. Batra …. Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and others        ….  Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. We  are  in  this  case  concerned  with  the  question  

whether  the  State  Government  is  competent  to  vary  the  

remuneration  fixed  to  a  constitutional  appointee  to  his  

disadvantage, after his appointment.  

3. The appellant herein was working, in the post of senior  

most Additional Secretary, in the Lok Sabha during the years

Page 2

2

1991-1994 drawing a salary of Rs.7500/- per month as basic  

pay for the post in the pay scale of Rs.7500-7600 which was  

revised in the pay scale of Rs.22400-525-24500 and DA @  

32% w.e.f. 01.01.1996.  According to the appellant, he had  

the  prospect  of  promotion  to  the  Secretary  General,  Lok  

Sabha, a post equivalent to Cabinet Secretary which is in the  

pay scale of Rs.30,000/- fixed and DA @ 32%.  The age of  

retirement  of  Secretary  General,  Lok  Sabha,  when  the  

appellant joined Haryana Public Service Commission, was 60  

years, which was later increased to 62 years.

4. The appellant, while he was working as the senior most  

Additional  Secretary  in  the  Lok  Sabha,  was  appointed  as  

Chairman  of  the  Haryana  Public  Service  Commission  (for  

short ‘the Haryana PSC’) by the Haryana State Government  

on 06.07.1994 in exercise of the powers conferred by Article  

316 of the Constitution of India along with Ravinder Sharma  

and Ram Phal Singh as Members of the Haryana PSC.  On  

joining  duty,  conditions  of  services  of  the  appellant  were  

governed  by  the  Haryana  Public  Service  Commission

Page 3

3

(Conditions  of  Service)  Regulations,  1972  (for  short  ‘1972  

Regulations’).   At  that  time,  the existing basic  pay of  the  

Chairman of the Haryana PSC as per rules was Rs.7000/- per  

month.   The appellant  then preferred a representation on  

04.10.1994 requesting the Government to re-fix his pay as  

Rs.7500/- on 06.07.1994 and Rs.7600/- w.e.f. 01.09.1994 by  

relaxing the Rules.

5. The  Government  of  Haryana  examining  the  said  

request  passed  an  order  on  18.03.1996,  fixing  the  

remuneration  of  the  Chairman,  Haryana PSC  as  Rs.7500/-  

per  month  w.e.f.  06.07.1994  as  a  personal  measure,  in  

relaxation of the provisions contained in Regulation 6 of the  

1972 Regulations.  Noticing that the above-mentioned order  

was  silent  as  to  from  which  date  the  allowances,  as  

mentioned in Regulation 6 were to be given to the appellant,  

the Commission wrote a letter on 20.06.1996 to the State  

Government to clarify as to whether the allowances were to  

be given w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as was given to the other State  

Government  employees  or  w.e.f.  01.01.1989  when

Page 4

4

Regulation  6  was  amended  to  include  ‘allowances’  in  

addition to the basic pay.  The State Government referring to  

the said letter replied on 23.06.1996 stating that DA was to  

be paid w.e.f. 01.01.1989 only and not w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as  

admissible to other State Government employees.   

6. The appellant then wrote a Demi Official  letter dated  

24.9.1996 to the Chief Secretary, Haryana PSC stating that  

he was entitled to the Dearness Allowance,  which he was  

drawing while he was Additional Secretary and if the DA was  

paid  only  w.e.f.  08.02.1989,  then  the  same  would  be  in  

pursuance to Regulation 6, which already stood relaxed in  

his case.  It was also pointed that that when Regulation 6  

was  relaxed,  all  conditions  laid  down  under  the  said  

Regulation  also  stood  automatically  relaxed.   The  

Government, however, reiterated the earlier stand through  

their  letter  dated  23.10.1996.   Over  and  above,  the  

Government  passed  yet  another  order  on  29.11.1996  

withdrawing its earlier order dated 18.03.1996 whereby the  

appellant’s remuneration was fixed by relaxing Regulation 6

Page 5

5

and  a  direction  was  also  issued  to  recover  the  excess  

payment already made to the appellant.  The appellant then  

filed a representation on 03.02.1997 to the Government of  

Haryana stating his  grievances but  the State Government  

passed an order on 15.04.1997 re-fixing the remuneration of  

the appellant in pursuance to the Regulation 6 of the 1972  

Regulations  as  Rs.4135/-  per  month.   The  appellant  

subsequently  made  various  representations  but  his  

grievances  were  not  redressed.   The  appellant  then  

preferred CWP No.13029 of 1997 before the High Court of  

Punjab and Haryana seeking a declaration that the first and  

second  proviso  to  Regulation  6(2)  of  the  Regulation  are  

unconstitutional and ultra vires to Articles 14 and 16 of the  

Constitution  of  India  and  to  quash  the  order  dated  

29.11.1996  and  15.04.1997.   While  the  writ  petition  was  

pending, the appellant retired from service as Chairman of  

the Haryana PSC on 19.09.1999.

7. The writ petition filed by the appellant was later heard  

by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court

Page 6

6

and the same was dismissed on 04.11.2009.  Aggrieved by  

the same this appeal has been preferred by special leave.

8. We  have  heard  Shri  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned  senior  

counsel  appearing for  the appellant  and Mr.  Manjit  Singh,  

learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State  

of Haryana.

9. The  appellant  was  appointed  as  Chairman  of  the  

Haryana PSC by the Governor  of  the State of  Haryana in  

exercise of powers conferred under Article 316 (1A) of the  

Constitution  of  India.   The  conditions  of  service  of  the  

Chairman  and  the  Members  are  governed  by  the  1972  

Regulations.  Regulation 6, with which we are concerned in  

this case, reads as follows:

“6. (1)  The  Chairman  shall  receive  a  remuneration of seven thousand and five hundred  rupees a month and each of the other Members a  remuneration  of  six  thousand  and  five  hundred  rupees a month.  They shall  be entitled to such  other allowances as may be admissible in future  from  time  to  time,  to  Government  employees  drawing the same pay (in addition to four hundred  rupees a month as car allowances provide a care  is maintained).

Page 7

7

(2) The Chairman or the Member if, at the time of  his appointment as such, is a retired Government  employee he will be entitled to the remuneration  mentioned in sub-regulation (1) in addition to the  pension sanctioned to him.

Provided  that  the  amount  of  remuneration  plus the gross amount of pension or the pension  equivalent  to  other  forms of  retirement  benefits  does not exceed the pay last drawn by him before  his retirement or the remuneration mentioned in  sub-regulation (1) whichever is higher.

Provided further that the total remuneration  plus the gross amount of pension and the pension  equivalent to other forms of retirement benefits,  excluding the allowances, shall in no case exceed  eight thousand rupees per month.

(3) The  Chairman  or  the  Members  who  at  the  time of the appointment as such, in the service of  the  Central  or  State  Government  and  does  not  exercise  option  under  sub-regulation  (1)  of  regulation 9 shall be paid the remuneration drawn  by  him  immediately  before  his  appointment  as  Chairman or Member, as the case may be, or the  remuneration  mentioned  in  sub-regulations  (1)  whichever is higher, till the date of his retirement  from Government service in the normal course and  thereafter his remuneration shall be regulated as  provided in sub-regulation (2).

(4) A  member  who  in  the  absence  of  the  Chairman  on  leave  or  otherwise,  is  asked  to  perform  the  additional  duties  of  the  Chairman,  shall be entitled to an additional remuneration at  the rate of two hundred rupees a month:

Page 8

8

Provided  that  such  additional  duties  are  performed for a period of not less than fourteen  days.”

10. We  find  that  after  the  appellant  was  appointed  as  

Chairman of the Haryana PSC,  the Government  passed an  

order  on  18.03.1996  relaxing  the  provision  contained  in  

Regulation 6 and re-fixed the remuneration of the appellant  

as  Chairman of  the  Haryana PSC as  Rs.7500/-  p.m.  w.e.f.  

06.07.1994  as  a  “personal  measure  to  him.”  We  find  it  

difficult to appreciate the stand of the State Government as  

to  how  they  could  withdraw  that  benefit  vide  notification  

dated 29.11.1996 and then re-fix the same vide order dated  

15.04.1997 as Rs.4135/- p.m.  The Government after having  

recognized  the  status  of  the  appellant  as  a  constitutional  

appointee, and relaxed Regulation 6 so far as the appellant  

is concerned vide its order dated 18.03.1996, has no power  

to  withdraw  the  same,  especially  when  no  master  and  

servant  relationship  has  been  established  between  a  

constitutional appointee and the State Government.  True,  

the appellant’s conditions of service were governed by the

Page 9

9

1972  Regulations,  but  when  the  Government  themselves  

had relaxed the same, especially Regulation 6, as a personal  

measure to him, then we fail to see how they could withdraw  

that benefit to his disadvantage which, in our view, is clearly  

discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution  

of India.   

11. We  are  also  of  the  view,  as  rightly  contended  by  

learned senior counsel for the appellant, that the High Court  

has committed a serious error in ignoring the judgment of  

the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15159 of 1996  

titled  Ram Phal  Singh v.  State  of  Haryana  & others  

decided  on  8th September,  2004,  a  case  relating  to  the  

Member of the Haryana Public Service Commission, who was  

appointed  as  a  Member  along  with  the  appellant  by  the  

Haryana  Government  vide  notification  dated  16.07.1994.  

Learned  Single  Judge  in  that  case  held  that  first  proviso  

under  Regulation  6(2)  of  the  1972  Regulations   which  

restricts the remuneration payable to a Member of the Public  

Service  Commission  (who  was  drawing  wages  under  the

Page 10

10

Government at a level higher than the remuneration fixed  

under  Regulation  6(1)  of  1972  Regulations),  the  last  pay  

drawn  by  him  under  the  government  at  the  time  of  his  

appointment as a member of the Public Service Commission,  

is violative of the proviso under Clause (b) of Article 318 of  

the Constitution of India.

12. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  

placing  reliance  on  Ram  Phal  Singh’s case  (supra),  

rendered  the  judgment  in  M.B.  Pandove v.  State  of  

Punjab  and  others on  26.2.2005.   Against  the  said  

judgment, Special Leave Petition (C) No.12336 of 2005 was  

preferred  before  this  Court  which  was  dismissed  on  

13.07.2005.   Further,  we notice  that  LPA No.115 of  2005  

filed against the judgment in Ram Phal Singh v.  State of  

Haryana & others CWP 15159 of 1995 was also dismissed  

by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on  

19.03.2007

13. We find that the above-mentioned facts were brought  

to the knowledge of the Division Bench of the Punjab and

Page 11

11

Haryana  High  Court  when  they  rendered  the  impugned  

judgment but  the Division Bench,  however,  over-ruled the  

judgment  in  Ram Phal  Singh’s case  (supra),  which  was  

also affirmed by another  Division Bench in  LPA No.115 of  

2005 vide its  judgment dated 19.03.2007.  We fail  to see  

how a coordinate bench of the High Court could over-rule a  

judgment  of  a  learned  Single  Judge  which  was  already  

affirmed by another coordinate bench.  The Division Bench  

has committed  a  serious  error  of  the  highest  order.   The  

Division Bench should have referred the matter to a larger  

Bench, if it was in disagreement with the judgment of the  

learned Single Judge which had already been affirmed by a  

co-ordinate  bench  and  on  the  doctrine  of  merger,  the  

judgment of the Single Judge had merged with that of the  

Division Bench.   Thus,  in essence,  the Division Bench has  

overruled  the  judgment  of  a  co-ordinate  bench  which  is  

clearly inadmissible.  Over and above, it may also be noted  

that the judgment in  Ram Phal Singh’s case (supra) was  

followed by another coordinate Division Bench of the High  

Court in M.P. Pandove (supra).  Special Leave Petition (C)

Page 12

12

No.12336  of  2005  filed  against  that  judgment  was  also  

dismissed  by  this  Court.   In  the  impugned  judgment,  all  

these aspects are conveniently sidetracked and overlooked.

14. Law on this point has been dealt with by this Court in  

several Judgments.  In  Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v.  Jagdish  

(2001) 2 SCC 247, this Court held as follows:  

“As  the  learned  Single  Judge  was  not  in  agreement with the view expressed in Devilal case  it  would  have  been  proper,  to  maintain  judicial  discipline,  to  refer  the matter  to  a larger  Bench  rather  than to take a different  view.  We note it  with regret and distress that the said course was  not followed. It  is  well-settled that if  a Bench of  coordinate  jurisdiction  disagrees  with  another  Bench  of  coordinate  jurisdiction  whether  on  the  basis of “different arguments” or otherwise, on a  question of law, it is appropriate that the matter  be referred to a larger Bench for resolution of the  issue  rather  than  to  leave  two  conflicting  judgments to operate, creating confusion. It is not  proper  to  sacrifice  certainty  of  law.  Judicial  decorum,  no less than legal  propriety forms the  basis  of  judicial  procedure  and  it  must  be  respected at all costs.”

 15. In  State of Bihar v.  Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh  

and others AIR 2003 SC 2443 this Court held that when an  

earlier decision may seems to be incorrect to a Bench of a

Page 13

13

coordinate jurisdiction considering the question later, on the  

ground  that  a  possible  aspect  of  the  matter  was  not  

considered or not raised before the Court or more aspects  

should have been gone into by the Court deciding the matter  

earlier but it would not be a reason to say that the decision  

was rendered  per incuriam and liable to be ignored.   The  

earlier judgment may seem to be not correct yet it will have  

the  binding  effect  on  the  latter  bench  of  coordinate  

jurisdiction.  The Court held that easy course of saying that  

earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible  

and the matter will have to be resolved only in two ways –  

either to follow the earlier decision or refer the matter to a  

larger  Bench  to  examine  the  issue,  in  case  it  is  felt  that  

earlier  decision  is  not  correct  on  merits.   In  this  respect  

reference may also be made to the Judgment of this Court in  

Union of India and others v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd.  

AIR  1986  SC  806,  Sundarjas  Kanyalal  Bhathija  and  

others v.  The  Collector,  Thane,  Maharashtra  and  

others AIR  1990  SC  261  and  Tribhovandas

Page 14

14

Purshottamdas  Thakkar v.  Ratilal  Motilal  Patel  AIR  

1968 SC 372 etc.

16. Applying the above-mentioned principle, we are clearly  

of the view that the High Court has committed a grave error  

in over-ruling the judgment of the learned Single Judge in  

Ram Phal Singh’s case (supra), which stood merged into  

the judgment of a Division Bench as it  was affirmed by a  

coordinate bench in LPA No.115 of 2005 on 19.03.2007 and  

failed to remedy the illegality meted out to the appellant.  

17. We,  therefore,  allow  this  appeal  and  set  aside  the  

impugned judgment of the High Court and quash the orders  

passed  by  the  State  of  Haryana  dated  29.11.1996  and  

15.04.1997. The appellant, therefore, would be entitled to all  

consequential benefits which would be paid to him within a  

period of three months from the date of this order.  State of  

Haryana is also directed to pay an award of Rs.50,000/- to  

the appellant by way of cost.

.……………………………..J.

Page 15

15

(K.S. Radhakrishnan)

……………………………..J. (A.K. Sikri)

New Delhi, October 07, 2013.