Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5854 OF 2014 (arising out of SLP(C) No.31621 of 2012)

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY       … APPELLANT

VERSUS

U. DINAKAR AND ANR.       … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order  

dated  8th November,  2011  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Karnataka, Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.1030 of 2006. By the  

impugned  judgment,  the  High  Court  allowed  the  appeal  

preferred by the respondent no.1 and held that he is entitled  

to the Central pay scale and denial of such scale would be  

bad in law.

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

Respondent  No.1 was  selected  and  appointed  as  Deputy  

Registrar of Karnataka Regional Engineering College, Suratkal  

(now known as National Institute of Technology, Karnataka) in  

March,  1979.  While  he  was  so  performing  the  duty  the  

Department  of  Education,  Ministry  of  Human  Resource  

Development,  Government  of  India  issued  a  communication  

bearing No.F.No.A11014/2/87/T-4 dated 5th February, 1988 to the

Page 2

2

Principals  of  all  Regional  Engineering  Colleges  (except  

Srinagar and Jaipur) revising the scales of pay attached to  

the Senior Administrative posts carrying the Central scales  

of pay on the basis of the recommendations of the Fourth  

Central  Pay  Commission  w.e.f.  01.01.1986.  Thereafter,  the  

Board  of  Governors  of  the  appellant-Institute  resolved  to  

accept  the  proposal  of  the  Central  Government  regarding  

revision of pay scale attached to the Senior Administrative  

posts.

4. On  19th April,  1988,  the  Department  of  Education,  

Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India,  

issued another order to the effect that the non-academic post  

of  Registrar,  Librarian  and  Foremen  in  the  Regional  

Engineering Colleges be given State pay scales comparable to  

pay scales in similar other institutions in the State. It was  

decided  that  an  option  may  be  sought  from  the  present  

incumbents whether they would like to opt for the Central  

scales of pay or State scales of pay. Those who may opt for  

Central Scales of pay their posts may be convened into the  

State Scales of pay as and when the present incumbents to the  

posts leave the job or retire. In due course of time all the  

posts are converted into State scales of pay. Thus, for new  

incumbents it was ordered to give State scales of pay.  The  

relevant extract of the order dated 19th April, 1988 which is  

necessary for adjudication of this appeal is as under:

Page 3

3

“In  the  meeting  it  was  observed  that  the  incumbents  to  the  non-academic  post  of  Registrar, Librarian and Foreman in the RECs  are on  Central  scales  of  pay, put  drawing  D.a. and other allowances of State Government  rates. The matter was discussed at length and  it  was  observed  that  incumbents  to  these  posts  are mostly recruited locally. It  was  accordingly decided  that  incumbents  to all  these  posts  may be  given  State pay scales  comparable  to  pay  scales  in  similar  other  institutions in the State keeping in view the  size  of  the  RECs  and  duties  and  responsibilities  assigned  accordingly  draw  State scales and State Government allowances.  To  obviate  any  difficulty  in  implementing  this decision, it was decided that an option  may  be  sought  from  the  present  incumbents  whether  they  would  like  to  opt  for  the  Central scales of pay or State scales of pay.  However, for these who opt for central scales  of  pay,  those  posts  may  be  convened  into  State scales of pay as and when the present  incumbents  to  the  posts  leave  the  job  or  retire. Thus in due course of time all these  posts be converted into State scales of pay.”

5. According to appellant, the aforesaid order dated 19th  

April,  1988,  was  adopted  and  applied  in  respect  of  the  

appellant-Institute with respect to the Senior Administrative  

Posts in the appellant-Institute.

6. The Department of Education, Government of India issued  

an order dated 23rd June, 1990 granting its approval to the  

Government of India notification dated 5th February, 1988 and  

giving  an  option  to  the  existing  incumbents  either  to  

continue in the Central pay scale or opt for State pay scale.  

It  further  provided  that  the  State  pay  scale  suggested  

therein would be applicable to the future incumbents, who  

will be appointed as and when, the existing incumbents would

Page 4

4

cease to hold the respective posts. The relevant portion of  

the letter dated 23rd June, 1990 reads as under:

”Pay to the aforesaid no academic posts into  the Karnataka Regional Engineering college,  Surthkal, as indicated in Column 4 of the  Statement below:

S.  No .

Names of  the post

Present  scale  now  approved  (w.e.f.  of  pay)

Revised 1986  scale of pay  as approved  by Govt. Of  India

1. Registrar Rs.3000-100- 3500-125- 4500

Rs.2200-5- 2300-75-2900- 90-2350-100- 3950-120-4070

2. Workshop  Supdt.

Rs.3000-100- 3500-125- 4500

Rs.2200-5- 2300-75-2900- 90-2350-100- 3950-120-4070

3. Deputy  Registrar

Rs.2200-75- 2800-EB-100- 4000

Rs.1900-50- 2300-75-2900- 90-3350-100- 3650

4. Librarian Rs.2200-075- 2800-EB-100- 4000

Rs.1900-50- 2300-75-2900- 90-3350-100- 3650

7.  Respondent No.1, who was working as Deputy Registrar in  

the appellant-Institute opted for the Central pay scale with  

respect to the post of Deputy Registrar vide his letter dated  

7th July, 1993.

8. Several  posts,  including  the  post  of  the  Registrar,  

became vacant during this period. Therefore, the appellant-

Institute  issued  notification  No.5295/ESTT/12/B1  dated  29th  

July, 1994 inviting applications for appointment to various  

posts,  including  the  post  of  the  Registrar,  by  direct  

recruitment. The notification unequivocally stated that the  

scale of  pay applicable to the post of Registrar is Rs.2375-

75-200-100-3700-125-4450 and that besides the basic pay in  

the applicable time scale of pay of the respective posts,

Page 5

5

admissible allowances in accordance with Karnataka Government  

Rules as in force from time to time are payable. Relevant  

extract of the advertisement dated 29th July, 1994 reads as  

under:

“4. Registrar: 1 post (Principal’s office) (Scale of pay Rs.2375-75-200-100-3700-125-4450).

II. Details  of  qualification/Experience/  specialization required:

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

General Instructions:

i) In case a candidate for the advertised  post  is  not  suitable  for the  post,  the  next  lower position may be offered to the candidates,  it he is found suitable for the lower position.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

IV. Besides the basic pay in the applicable  time  scale  of  pay  of  the  respective  posts  admissible  allowances  in  accordance  with  Karnataka Government Rules in force from time to  time are payable.”

9. Pursuant  to  the  said  advertisement,  respondent  No.1  

applied for the post of Registrar of the appellant Institute.  

The Selection Committee of the appellant-Institute selected  

respondent No.1 for the said post and issued the appointment  

letter No.5487/ESTT/1994/91 dated 16th February, 1995.  

10. As  respondent  No.1  was  already  holding  the  post  of  

Deputy Registrar in the appellant-Institute. It is alleged  

that he colluded with the officers of the appellant-Institute  

to issue an appointment letter prescribing the Central scale  

of pay i.e. Rs.3000-100-3500-125-4500 instead of the State

Page 6

6

pay scale of Rs.2375-75-2900-100-3700-125-4450 as provided in  

the advertisement notification dated 29th July, 1994.

11. When the appellant-Institute discovered that respondent  

No.1 was drawing a salary higher than what he was entitled to  

due to the anomaly in the advertisement and the letter of  

appointment, it appointed a five-members Enquiry Committee,  

which comprised of respondent No.2 herein as the Chairman and  

4  other  Members,  to  look  into  the  matter.  The  Enquiry  

Committee issued a show cause notice dated 23rd January, 1998  

to  respondent  No.1  seeking  explanation  for  the  aforesaid  

anomaly.  Later,  another  show  cause  notice  was  issued  to  

respondent No.1 by the appellant-Institute on 9th February,  

1999 to which respondent no.1 sent a reply on 15th February,  

1999. The Enquiry Committee considered all the aspects of the  

matter  and  submitted  a  report  dated  24th February,  1999  

recommending  appropriate  disciplinary  action  against  

respondent No.1.

12. Based  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Enquiry  Committee  

dated 24th February, 1999, a show cause notice dated 10th May,  

1999 was issued to respondent No.1 seeking an explanation as  

to why the  pay scale of  respondent  No.1 as  shown in  the  

appointment letter should not be rectified by amending the  

appointment letter dated 16th February, 1995 issued to him by  

deleting the scale of pay of Rs.3000-4500 and substituting  

the  same  with  the  scale  of  Rs.2375-4450.  The  show  cause  

notice also sought to fix his salary accordingly and sought

Page 7

7

explanation as to recovery of excess pay drawn by respondent  

No.1 be not made.

13. On 5th June, 1999, respondent No.1 submitted his reply to  

the aforesaid show cause notice dated 10th May, 1999.  

14. Thereafter, on  6th July, 1999  the  appellant-Institute,  

after considering the reply filed by respondent No.1 issued  

an  order  rectifying  the  pay  scale  of  respondent  No.1.  

Accordingly, the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 mentioned in the  

appointment letter dated 16th February, 1995 was deleted and  

same was substituted with pay scale of Rs.2375-4450 and the  

salary was refixed as per the said pay scale.  

15.  Aggrieved by the order dated 6th July, 1999, passed by  

the  appellant-Institute,  respondent  No.1  filed  an  appeal  

challenging the aforesaid order and claiming the pay scale  

which he was drawing under the appointment order. The Board  

of  Governors  in  its  128th meeting  dated  30th September,  

1999/13th October,  1999  rejected  the  appeal  filed  by  

respondent No.1 and upheld the pay scale rectification order  

dated 6th July, 1999.

16. Pursuant  to  the  above  order,  the  appellant-Institute  

issued an order dated 13th October, 1999 whereby the pay scale  

of  respondent  No.1  was  fixed  in  the  State  pay  scale  of  

Rs.2375-75-2900-100-3700-125-4450  with  effect  from  20th  

February, 1995. He  was granted the  revised  equivalent  pay  

scale of Rs.7400-200-8800-260-10880-320-12320.

Page 8

8

17. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition  

No.40037/1999 before the High Court of Karnataka challenging  

the action of the appellant-Institute refixing his salary on  

the  basis  of  the  State  pay  scale.  Though  the  order  of  

refixing was challenged, respondent No.1 did not challenge  

the  Government  of  India  notification  dated 19th July, 1988  

whereby it was decided to grant State scale of pay to the  

newly appointed/recruited persons. During the pendency of the  

writ  petition  the  appellant-Institute  issued  Office  

Memorandum dated 7th February, 2000 requesting respondent No.1  

to refund the excess salary of Rs.4,763.50 paise paid to him.  

The appellant-Institute also filed a counter-affidavit in the  

writ petition denying all the allegations and justifying the  

order impugned.

18. Learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment and  

order dated 30th May, 2006 dismissed the writ petition.  

19. Against the order of dismissal respondent no.1 preferred  

Writ  Appeal  No.1030  of  2006,  which  was  allowed  by  the  

impugned judgment dated 8th November, 2011.

20. Learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  

submitted that respondent no.1 had not taken any plea of bias  

before the learned Single Judge as apparent from the judgment  

and order dated 30th May, 2006 passed by the learned Single  

Judge. However, such plea was taken before the Division Bench  

which allowed the writ appeal inter alia on the ground that  

the  enquiry  was  tainted  by  bias.  According  to  appellant,

Page 9

9

there was a mistake in the order of appointment issued in  

favour  of  respondent  no.1,  it  was  open  to  the  competent  

authority to rectify the mistake.  

21. On the other hand, stand taken by respondent no.1 is  

that he was rightly granted Central scale of pay, the order  

recalling the benefit is illegal.  

22. Appointment to the post of Registrar was made by the  

Institute  by  direct  recruitment  pursuant  to  notification  

No.5295/ESTT/12/B1  dated  29th July,  1994.  The  notification  

unequivocally stated that the scale of pay applicable to the  

post of Registrar is Rs.2375-75-200-100-3700-125-4450 and that  

besides the basic pay in the applicable time scale of pay of  

the  respective  posts,  admissible  allowances  in  accordance  

with Karnataka Government Rules as in force from time to time  

are  payable.  Pursuant  to  the  said  notification  respondent  

no.1  was  appointed  as  Registrar  by  letter  

No.5487/ESTT/1994/91 dated  16th July, 1995.  However, in  the  

letter of appointment the Central scale of pay of Rs.3000-

100-3500-125-4500 with other allowances were mentioned.  

23. It is not the case of respondent no.1 that the Central  

scale  of  pay  of  Rs.3000-4500  as  shown  in  his  letter  of  

appointment  was  notified  by  the  Institute.  The  case  of  

respondent no.1 is also not a case of promotion so as to  

enable  him  to  claim  Central  scale  of  pay,  which  he  was  

drawing against lower post of Deputy Registrar. The case of  

respondent no.1 being that of the direct recruitment pursuant

Page 10

10

to notification dated 29th July, 1994, respondent no.1 cannot  

claim that he was promoted to the post of Registrar. In the  

letter of appointment, it was mentioned that respondent no.1  

i.e. “Sh. U. Dinakar is promoted and appointed as Registrar”  

in the office of the Karnataka Regional Engineering College,  

Surathkal.

24. We  do  not  intend  to  go  into  the  question  whether  

respondent no.1 manipulated and inserted the word promoted in  

the letter of appointment. Admittedly, the appointment order  

has  been  issued  pursuant  to  the  notification  of  direct  

recruitment,  therefore,  it  should  be  treated  as  direct  

recruitment. Mistake if any committed by clerical staff or  

any  other  authority  in  mentioning  the  word  ‘promoted  and  

appointed’ in place of ‘appointed’ and showing higher scale  

of pay of Rs.3000-100-3500-125-4500,it is always open to the  

competent authority to correct the mistake.  

25. However, before such correction it is incumbent to the  

part of the authority to inform the officer concerned that  

there is a mistake in his order of appointment and competent  

authority intends to correct the same so as to enable the  

officer to submit an effective reply and show that it was not  

a mistake but the order was genuine and in accordance with  

law.   

26. In the present case, the authority had given notice to  

respondent no.1 and brought to his notice that there is a  

genuine mistake in his letter of appointment and he has been

Page 11

11

wrongly  given  a  higher  pay  of  scale  of  Rs.3000-4500.  

Respondent no.1 submitted his reply and not taken any plea  

that  he  has  not  applied  pursuant  to  the  notification  of  

direct recruitment  but his case was considered by way of  

promotion.  In  that  view  of  the  matter  we  hold  that  the  

competent authority has inherent power to correct the mistake  

if any committed in the order of appointment after giving  

proper opportunity to the concerned employee/officer.  

27. In  view  of  the  aforesaid  finding  we  hold  that  the  

appellant had committed no error in correcting the letter of  

appointment by replacing the correct scale of pay to which  

respondent  no.1 was  entitled  i.e.  Rs.2375-75-2900-100-3700-

125-4450 as provided in the advertisement/notification dated  

29th July, 1994.  

28. The  bias  or  malafide  plea  is  generally raised  by an  

interested party, the Court cannot draw any conclusion unless  

allegations  are  substantiated  beyond  doubt.  In  this  

connection,  one  may  refer  decision  in  M.V. Thimmaiah  and  

others v. Union Public Service Commission and others (2008) 2  

SCC  119. So  far  as  the  allegation  of  malafide  against  

Dr.Balaveera Reddy is concerned, though he was impleaded as a  

party, no specific allegation was made to substantiate such  

allegation.  The  appellant-Institute  when  discovered  that  

respondent No.1 was drawing salary in a higher scale of pay  

than the scale of pay to which he was entitled  constituted a  

five-members Enquiry Committee to look into the matter headed

Page 12

12

by Dr.Balaveera Reddy. Though  allegation of  bias has  been  

made against Dr.Balaveera Reddy, no allegation has been made  

against rest of the four Members of the Committee. Even the  

other  members  were  not  impleaded  as  a  party.  In  this  

background,  it  was  not  open  for  the  High  Court  to  give  

finding of bias against one or other member of the Committee,  

who decided the issue pursuant to which the notice was issued  

to respondent  no.1. The  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  

while wrongly held that the enquiry was tainted with bias,  

erred in holding that respondent no.1 was entitled to the  

Central scale of pay.

29. For the  reasons  aforesaid,  we  set  aside  the  impugned  

judgment  and  order  dated  8th November, 2011 passed  by  the  

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal  

No.1030 of 2006. The appeal is allowed. No costs.  

…………………………………………………………………….J.                       (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

…………………………………………………………………….J.                  (KURIAN JOSEPH)

NEW DELHI, JUNE 30,2014.