REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).  9533-9537  OF 2019          (arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) NOS.5395-5399 of 2016)

P. Singaravelan & Ors. Etc. Etc.     ..Appellants

Versus

The District Collector, Tiruppur and  DT & Ors. Etc. Etc.     ..Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9538-9546 OF 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5605-5613 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9547-9549  OF 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5391-5393 of 2016)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9551-9559  OF 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5367-5375 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9560-9561 OF 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos.                   of 2019)

     [Diary No. 42301/2017]  

J U D G M E N T  

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.  

CIVIL APPEALS @     SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5395-5399 OF 2016;      CIVIL APPEALS @     SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5605-5613 OF 2016;   CIVIL APPEALS @     SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5391-5393 OF 2016, AND   CIVIL APPEALS @     SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5367-5375 OF 2016   

Leave granted.   

1

2. These appeals have been filed against the common final

judgment  and  order  dated  08.07.2015  passed  by  the  High

Court of Judicature at Madras allowing writ appeals filed by the

Respondents  herein,  being  state  authorities,  and  dismissing

writ  petitions filed by the Appellants herein,  being drivers in

various departments of  the Government of  Tamil  Nadu,  with

respect to the Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay

applicable to them.

3. The Appellants,  in  a nutshell,  are  claiming the grant  of

Selection Grade 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,  Finance  (Pay  Cell)  Department  dated

13.04.1998  (for  short  “G.O.  Ms.  No.  162”),  which  has  been

granted  to  around  3000  similarly  placed  employees.  The

Appellants place reliance on various decisions rendered by this

Court and the High Court of Madras in several writ petitions and

appeals granting similar pay scales to the petitioners therein.

Thus,  it  is  argued  that  the  impugned  judgment  of  the  High

Court has erroneously differed from the consistent view taken

in these decisions.  

4. On the other hand, the Respondents argue in favour of the

impugned  judgment,  claiming  that  the  initial  grant  of  the

2

claimed  pay  scale  to  some drivers  (out  of  which  the  entire

cluster of litigations arose) was merely on account of an error

on the part of officials in some government departments. Thus,

it is submitted that the applicable scales of pay are Rs. 4000-

6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively for the Selection Grade

and Special Grade.

5. It has come to our attention that several Benches of this

Court have dismissed SLPs against decisions of the High Court

fixing pay scales of the concerned drivers therein at Rs. 5000-

8000 for the Selection Grade and Rs. 5500-9000 for the Special

Grade in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 162. We deem it fit to refer to

the orders passed by this Court in this respect:

WA No. 67 of 2012 SLP (Civil) CC No.  14715 of 2012

Dismissed on  10.09.2012

WA No. 383 of 2009 SLP (Civil) No.  35969 of 2009

Dismissed on  25.02.2015

WA No. 391 of 2009 SLP (Civil) No. 6522  of 2010

Dismissed on  25.02.2015

WA No. 382 to 388 of 2009

SLP (Civil) No. 6523- 6530 of 2010

Dismissed on  25.02.2015

WP No. 462 of 2012 WP No. 24912 of  2010 WA No. 383-391 of  2009

SLP (Civil) No.  22491 of 2012

Dismissed on  25.02.2015

WP -29119- 2012 SLP (Civil) No.  33037of 2013

Dismissed on  25.02.2015

3

WA No. 791 and 792  of 2013 WP No. 2929 and  2930 of 2012

SLP (Civil) No.  33588 of 2013

Dismissed on  25.02.2015

WA No. 130, 131, 132 of 2011

SLP (Civil) CC No.  12886-12888 of  2013

Dismissed on  19.07.2013

WA No. 2243 of 2012 SLP (Civil) CC No.  6602 of 2013

Dismissed on  27.09.2013

WA No. 526 of 2013 SLP (Civil) CC No.  14007 of 2013

Dismissed on  21.08.2013

WA No. 24899 of  2014

SLP (Civil) No.  34265 of 2014

Dismissed on  06.02.2017

6. Be that  as it  may,  it  must  be noted that  all  the above

orders  of  this  Court  were  passed  at  the  stage  of  admission

itself. Even the order dated 25.02.2015, passed by a 3-Judge

Bench  of  this  Court  while  dealing  with  a  batch  of  appeals

having SLP (C) No. 35969/2009 as the lead 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-speaking

orders, inasmuch as they were confined to a mere refusal to

grant special leave to appeal to the petitioners therein. At this

juncture,  it  is  useful  to  recall  that  it  is  well-settled  that  the

dismissal of an SLP against an order or judgment of a lower

4

forum is not an affirmation of the same. If such an order of this

Court is non-speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of

law under Article 141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine

of  merger.  The  following  discussion  on  this  proposition  in

Kunhayammed v. State  of  Kerala, (2000)  6  SCC  359,  is

relevant in this regard:

“(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an  order  passed  by  a  court,  tribunal  or  any  other authority  before  superior  forum  and  such  superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in  issue  before  it,  the  decision  by  the  subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law. (ii)  The jurisdiction conferred by Article  136 of  the Constitution  is  divisible  into  two  stages.  The  first stage is upto the disposal of prayer for special leave to  file  an  appeal.  The second stage commences  if and  when  the  leave  to  appeal  is  granted  and  the special leave petition is converted into an appeal. (iii)  The  doctrine  of  merger  is  not  a  doctrine  of universal or unlimited application. It will  depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should  be  capable  of  reversing,  modifying  or affirming  the  order  put  in  issue  before  it.  Under Article  136  of  the  Constitution  the  Supreme  Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or  order  appealed  against  while  exercising  its appellate  jurisdiction  and  not  while  exercising  the discretionary  jurisdiction  disposing  of  petition  for

5

special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore  be  applied  to  the  former  and not  to  the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a  non-speaking  order  or  a  speaking  one.  In  either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it  means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its 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  has  two implications.  Firstly, the  statement  of  law  contained  in  the  order  is  a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in  the  order  are  the  findings  recorded  by  the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and  also  the  court,  tribunal  or  authority  in  any proceedings  subsequent  thereto  by  way  of  judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that  the  order  of  the  court,  tribunal  or  authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties. (vi)  Once  leave  to  appeal  has  been  granted  and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine  of  merger;  the  order  may  be  of  reversal, modification or merely affirmation. (vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into

6

an appeal before the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter  as  provided by  sub-rule  (1)  of  Order  47 Rule 1 CPC.”  

(emphasis added)

This view has also been adopted in a plethora of decisions

of  this  Court,  including  the  recent  decision  in  Khoday

Distilleries  v.  Sri  Mahadeshwara  Sahakara  Sakkare

Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376.  

8. Applying these observations to the present case, it is clear

that  there  has  been  no  pronouncement  by  this  Court

constituting the law of the 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 uninfluenced by the prior orders of

this Court dismissing SLPs against the grant of relief to drivers

placed similarly as the Appellants herein.

9. It is evident that the entire controversy in this case hinges

on the interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 162. Vide this order, the

Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 (for short “the

1998 Rules”) were notified, revising 25 standard pay scales on

a pay scale-to-pay scale basis for State Government employees

and teachers. While Schedule I to the 1998 Rules indicated the

revised pay scales,  Schedule II  specified the Selection Grade

7

and  Special  Grade  pay  scales  applicable  for  each  revised

Ordinary Grade. Further,  it  was stated in paragraph 4 of the

G.O. that for posts with no promotional avenues, the Selection

Grade  and  Special  Grade  scales  as  indicated  in  Schedule  II

would be applicable.  

10. It is not in dispute that drivers in various departments of

the  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu  were  entitled  to  revised

Ordinary  Grade pay scales  as  per  Schedule  I.  Further,  since

they did not have any promotional avenues, Selection Grade

and Special Grade pay scales under Schedule II would become

applicable  as and when they completed 10 and 20 years of

service respectively. The dispute here lies with respect to the

entries  under  Schedules  I  and  II  applicable  to  the  post  of

drivers. It is the submission of the Respondents that prior to the

revision  of  pay  scales  under  the  1998  Rules,  drivers  were

entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 975-1660 as determined by G.O.

No.  818,  Finance,  dated  09.09.1989.  Accordingly,  the

corresponding  revised  Ordinary  Grade  pay  scale  under

Schedule I  of  the 1998 Rules would be as per Entry No.  XX

below:

SCHEDULE -I LIST OF PAY SCALES

Grou Existing Scale Revised Scale

8

p (1)

(2) (3)

Rs. Rs. I 5500-200-6500 17400-500-21900 II 5100-150-5700 16400-450-20000 III 4500-150-5700 15000-400-18600 IV 4100-125-4850-150-5300 14300-400-18300 V 3950-125-4700-150-5000 12750-375-16500 VI 3700-125-4700-150-5000 12000-375-16500 VII 3000-100-3500-125-4500 10000-325-15200 VIII 2500-75-2800-100-4200 9100-275-14050 IX 2200-75-2800-100-4000 8000-275-13500 X 2000-60-2300-75-3200-100-3500 6500-200-11100 XI 2000-60-2300-75-3200 6500-200-10500 XII 1820-60-2300-75-3200 5900-200-9900 XIII 1640-60-2600-75-2900 5500-175-9000 XIV 1600-50-2300-60-2660 5300-150-8300 XV 1400-40-1600-50-2300-60-2600 5000-150-8000 XVI 1350-30-1440-40-1800-50-2200 4500-125-7000 XVII 1320-30-1560-40-2040 4300-100-6000 XVIII 1200-30-1560-40-2040 4000-100-6000 XIX 1100-25-1150-30-1660 3625-85-4900 XX 975-25-1150-30-1660 3200-85-4900 XXI 950-20-1150-25-1500 3050-75-3950-80-4590 XXII 825-15-900-20-1200 2750-70-3800-75-4400 XXIII 800-15-1010-20-1150 2650-65-3300-70-4000 XXIV 775-12-835-15-1030 2610-60-3150-65-3540 XXV 750-12-870-15-945 2550-55-2660-60-3200

(emphasis added)

11. Relying on this, the Respondents submit that the drivers

are entitled to a revised Ordinary Grade pay scale of Rs. 3200-

4900 only. As regards the Selection Grade and Special Grade

pay  scales  applicable,  the  Respondents  claim  that  the

Appellants are entitled to pay scales of Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs.

4300-6000 respectively as per Serial No. 6 of Schedule II, which

is corresponding to Entry No. XX of Schedule I. On the other

hand, the Appellants claim that they are entitled to the revised

Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000

9

and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule

II. It would be useful to refer to Schedule II in this regard:

SCHEDULE - II REVISED SELECTION GRADE AND SPECIAL GRADE  

SCALE OF PAY  Sl. Nos

. (1)

Ordinary Grade (2) Selection Grade  (3)

Special Grade (4)

Rs. Rs. Rs. 1 2550-55-2660-60-3200 2650-65-3300-70-

4000 2750-70-3800-75- 4400

2 2610-60-3150-65-3540 2750-70-3800-75- 4400

3050-75-3950-80- 4590

3 2650-65-3300-70-4000 3050-75-3950-80- 4590

3200-85-4900

4 2750-70-3800-75-4400 3050-75-3950-80- 4590

3200-85-4900

5 3050-75-3950-80-4590 4000-100-6000 4300-100-6000

6 3200-85-4900 4000-100-6000 4300-100-6000 7 3625-85-4900 4300-100-6000 4500-125-7000 8 4000-100-6000 5000-150-8000 5500-175-9000

9 4300-100-6000 5000-150-8000 5500-175-9000

10 4500-125-7000 5300-150-8300 5900-200-9900 11 5000-150-8000 5500-175-9000 6500-200-10500 12 5300-150-8300 6500-200-10500 8000-275-13500 13 5500-175-9000 6500-200-10500 8000-275-13500 14 5900-200-9900 8000-275-13500 9100-275-14050 15 6500-200-10500 8000-275-13500 9100-275-14050 16 6500-200-11100 9100-275-14050 10000-325-15200 17 8000-275-13500 9100-275-14050 10000-325-15200 18 9100-275-14050 10000-325-15200 12000-375-16500

(emphasis added)   

12. Indeed, the genesis of the entire dispute lies in the fixation

of Selection and Special Grade pay scales of certain drivers by

certain local  departments as per  Serial  No.  8 of  Schedule II.

Pursuant  to  this,  the  Joint  Secretary  to  the  Government,

Finance  Department,  issued  Letter  No.  96900/PC/98-2  dated

10

31.12.1998 to all Secretaries to the Government and Heads of

Department,  on the basis that such fixations were erroneous

and needed to be reviewed, with a direction to effect recoveries

wherever excess payments had been made.  

13. In  2006,  the  Secretary,  Personnel  and  Administrative

Reforms  (E)  Department  rejected  the  representation  of  the

Tamil  Nadu  Government  Department  Drivers’  Central

Association  seeking  fixation  of  Selection  Grade  and  Special

Grade  pay  scales  at  Rs.  5000-8000  and  Rs.  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,

which was allowed on the ground that the said proceedings did

not refer to G.O. Ms. No. 162. The association was directed to

make a fresh representation before the Finance Department, to

be decided in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 162.

14. Such representation,  however,  was also rejected by the

Finance Department vide letter No. 63685/CMPC/2006-1, dated

01.10.2007, which states as follows:

“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,  based  on  the

11

ordinary grade scale of pay granted to the posts of Drivers. As such all categories on par with Drivers in the Ordinary Grade 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  the recommendations  of  the  Official  Committee,  1998 and the Drivers are not denied the benefits ordered in the Government Order cited. Hence, your request has no merit to consider as requested.”

15. A batch of writ petitions challenging the above order was

subsequently filed before the High Court. These writ petitions

were  allowed  by  the  High  Court  vide  judgment  dated

30.09.2008  in  W.P.  No.  4288/2008  and  connected  matters

thereto,  with  a  direction  for  the  fixation  of  pay  scales  in

accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 162.  This was affirmed by the

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  vide  judgment  dated

01.09.2009 in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009.

16. Subsequently,  several  other  writ  petitions  were  filed  by

other similarly situated drivers seeking the benefit of the same

higher  pay  scale.  These  petitions  were  also  allowed  on  the

basis  of  the  previous  decisions  discussed  above,  with  the

notable exceptions of the judgment dated 18.11.2013 passed

by the Single Judge of the High Court in W.P. No. 1418/2001

12

and matters connected thereto,  and the impugned judgment

herein.  

17. Concluding that the drivers were not entitled to the higher

claimed  pay  scales,  these  two  judgments  differed  from  the

consistent view taken in the preceding judgments and orders

based on a scrutiny of G.O. Ms. No. 162 and the prior history of

pay scales payable to the drivers. They justified differing from

the decisions of  the Division Benches of the High Court on the

premise  that  there  was  no  specific  direction  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 Selection Grade

and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-

9000  respectively.  With  respect  to  subsequent  writ  petitions

granting these higher pay scales, it was noted that they had

been disposed of at the admission stage itself (in some cases

even  without  notice  to  the  government)  and  could  thus  be

disregarded.  

18. Given this departure in the impugned judgment from the

consistent view taken by prior coordinate Benches of the High

Court,  it  is  necessary  to  ascertain  whether  the  High  Court

should have instead referred the matter to a larger Bench for

consideration. This merits a closer reading of the decisions of

13

the  Single  Judge  in  W.P.  No.  4288/2008  (supra)  and  of  the

Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009. As discussed above,

the principal issue before the Courts in these decisions was the

validity of the order dated 01.10.2007 passed by the Finance

Department rejecting the claim of the drivers’ association for

Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000

and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively.  

18.1   The Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 (supra) and the

Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 both set aside the

order  dated  01.10.2007  based  on  the  fact  that  the  claimed

higher  pay  scales  had  already  been  granted  and  were  still

being received by certain other drivers in several government

departments,  as  per  G.O.  Ms.  No.  162.  Further,  and  more

importantly,  it  was  held  that  the  letter  dated  31.12.1998

wherein  such 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 of the G.O. itself. Thus, even though

the Court did not give any express direction to grant the higher

pay scales as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules,

we find that the same was implicit in the Court’s directions for

fixing the pay scales in  terms of  G.O.  Ms.  No.  162.  In other

14

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 to the higher Selection and Special Grade pay scales of

Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively.  

18.2     However, in the impugned judgment, the High Court

only focused on the fact that the conclusion reached by the

coordinate  Bench  in  W.A.  Nos.  383-391/2009  was  for

appropriate fixation of pay scales under G.O. Ms. No. 162 only,

and there was  no specific direction  for grant of the Selection

Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs.

5500-9000  respectively.  On  this  basis,  the  High  Court

proceeded to determine the question of pay scale entitlement

and took a view diametrically opposite to that of the coordinate

Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, finding that the Appellant-

drivers were only entitled to the Selection Grade and Special

Grade  pay  scales  of  Rs.  4000-6000  and  Rs.  4300-6000

respectively.  In  our  considered opinion,  such an approach is

based on a narrow reading of the decision of the coordinate

Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, as it fails to appreciate the

implicit direction in this order to grant the higher pay scales to

the drivers, as mentioned supra. Thus, it appears that the High

Court differed from the view taken previously by a coordinate

15

Bench based on a misreading of the same. In such a situation,

once it was found by the High Court that 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 the matter

by itself, and in the interest of judicial discipline, should instead

have referred the matter to a larger Bench for its consideration.

19.   Be that as it may, in the interest of expeditious disposal of

the matter, we do not deem it fit to remand the matter to the

High Court for fresh consideration at this stage. Thus, we shall

proceed to decide it on merits accordingly.  

20. In our considered opinion, apart from claiming parity with

similarly placed individuals, the Appellants have been unable to

justify how and why they are entitled to the Selection Grade

and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-

9000 as specified in Serial  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  of  revisions  made  to  the  pay  scales

applicable to drivers employed with the State Government, we

find that the applicable pay scales for the Selection Grade and

Special Grade would be as per Serial No. 6 of Schedule II to the

1998 Rules, i.e. Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively.

16

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 issued the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay

Rules,  1989,  implementing  the  recommendations  of  the  Vth

Tamil  Nadu Pay Commission.  Under  these rules,  the  original

and revised pay scales of 30 common categories of posts were

specified. The scale of pay for drivers was mentioned at Serial

No. 11 in the first part of the Schedule to these rules, having

been 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, Special Grade and Selection Grade

scales of pay were introduced for persons who had completed

10 years and 20 years of service respectively. For the 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 replaced by a pay scale-to-pay scale basis determination.

17

As already seen in Schedule I of the said rules, the pay scale of

Rs.  975-1660 applicable  to  drivers  was revised to  Rs.  3200-

4900. For this, the corresponding Selection 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

submission  of  the  Respondents  that  the  Appellants  are  not

lawfully  entitled  to  the  claimed  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 the

Appellants  are  entitled  to  claim  parity  with  the  drivers  who

have so far been granted benefits vide the orders of the High

Court and this Court, as mentioned supra in paragraph 5.

23. In  this  respect,  we  find  that  the  High  Court  in  the

impugned  judgment  was  correct  in  concluding  that  the

Appellants cannot claim such 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 the same. It is well-settled by

now that a person cannot invoke Article 14 to claim a benefit

extended  to  someone  similarly  placed  if  he  is  not  lawfully

entitled to such benefit in the first place. Article 14 embodies

18

the  concept  of  positive  equality  alone,  and  not  negative

equality, that is to say, it cannot be relied upon to perpetuate

an illegality or irregularity. In fact, this Court has opined that

this principle extends to orders passed by judicial fora as well.

Thus, the jurisdiction of a higher court cannot be invoked on

the basis of a wrong order passed by a lower forum. In this

respect,  it would be fruitful  to refer to the following passage

from  the  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 the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or  fraud,  even  by  extending  the  wrong  decisions made  in  other  cases.  The  said  provision  does  not envisage negative equality  but  has  only  a  positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or  by mistake,  such an order  does  not  confer  any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated.  Equality  is  a  trite,  which  cannot  be claimed  in  illegality  and  therefore,  cannot  be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order  has  been passed  by  a  judicial  forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity  or  illegality  or  for  passing  a  similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits  on  the  basis  of  the  wrong decision.

19

Even otherwise,  Article 14 cannot be stretched too far  for  otherwise  it  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  of Haryana [(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 : AIR 2010 SC 1937].)”

This proposition was also recently affirmed by a 3-Judge

Bench  of  this  Court  in  State  of  Odisha  v. Anup  Kumar

Senapati (Civil  Appeal  No.  7295/2019,  judgment  dated

16.09.2019).

24. Thus,  it  is  evident that  the Appellants cannot claim the

Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay of Rs. 5000-

8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively, solely on the strength of

earlier decisions of the High Court, without showing how they,

themselves, are entitled to such benefit in the first place. In

such  a  situation,  we  are  of  the  considered  view  that  the

Appellants  can  only  be  granted  the  benefit  of  the  Selection

Grade  and  Special  Grade  scales  of  pay  to  which  they  are

lawfully entitled in terms of G.O. Ms.  No.  162, i.e.  Rs.  4000-

6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively.

20

25. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, we find no

reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The instant

appeals are hereby dismissed, and the impugned judgment is

confirmed.  

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

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu,

represented  by  its  Principal  Secretary,  Finance  (Pay  Cell)

Department against the judgment and order dated 05.01.2015

of the High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 2363 of 2013, and the

final judgment and order dated 11.09.2017 dismissing Review

Application No. 153 of 2016 against the same, with respect to

the pay scale entitlements of certain drivers employed by the

High Court of Madras in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162.

3. These  appeals  arise  out  of  virtually  the  same  factual

background as those disposed of above. W.P. No. 2363 of 2013

was  filed  by  the  concerned  drivers  employed  with  the  High

Court of Madras, seeking quashing of paragraph 5 of Letter No.

63305/Pay Cell/2010-1 dated 08.11.2010 issued by the State

Government, on which basis the Government had denied them

the benefit of Selection and Special Grade pay scales as per

21

Serial No. 8 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules under G.O. Ms. No.

162. The petitioners therein also sought a direction to the State

Government for appropriate fixation of pay scales in the above

terms.

4. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition on the ground

that the drivers were not entitled to any promotional avenues,

and hence were entitled to the full benefits of the appropriate

pay scale under Schedule II of the 1998 Rules. It was further

found that the drivers were entitled to benefits under Serial No.

8 of the said schedule, looking to the disposal of similar matters

by the High Court and this Court. The review application filed

against the same also came to be dismissed by the High Court.

5. As discussed supra,  it  has not  been disputed before us

that the drivers concerned were not entitled to any promotional

avenues.  Thus,  it  is  evident  that  the  High  Court  rightly

concluded that the drivers were entitled to the full benefits of

the appropriate pay scale under Schedule II of the 1998 Rules.

However,  in  light  of  our  foregoing  finding  that  persons

employed in the post of drivers in various departments in the

Government  of  Tamil  Nadu  are  only  entitled  to  Ordinary,

Selection and Special Grade pay scales in terms of Serial No. 6

of  Schedule  II  of  the  1998  Rules,  i.e.  at  Rs.  3200-4900,  Rs.

22

4000-6000  and  Rs.  4300-6000  respectively,  we  have  no

hesitation to hold that the High Court erred in directing fixation

of such pay scales to drivers employed at the High Court in

terms of Serial No. 8 of the Schedule II, fixing Selection Grade

and Special Grade scales of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-

9000 respectively.  

6. The appeals  are therefore  allowed partly,  to  the extent

that  the  State  Government  is  directed  to  fix  the  pay  scale

benefits available to the Respondents in the instant appeals in

terms of Serial No. 6 of Schedule II  of the 1998 Rules under

G.O. Ms.                    No. 162.

…..…………................................J.  (MOHAN M.

SHANTANAGOUDAR)

….…………………………...............J.             (KRISHNA MURARI)

New Delhi; December 18, 2019

23