Supreme Court Clarifies Pay Scales for Tamil Nadu Drivers: P. Singaravelan vs. The District Collector, Tiruppur (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 18 December 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 1234
Judges: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Krishna Murari, J.
Can a government employee claim a higher pay scale based on an error made in favor of other similarly placed employees? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning drivers in the Tamil Nadu government, clarifying the application of pay scales under G.O. Ms. No. 162. The core issue revolved around whether drivers were entitled to higher pay scales based on a previous misinterpretation of the rules. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Krishna Murari, with Justice Shantanagoudar authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a group of drivers employed in various departments of the Government of Tamil Nadu. These drivers were seeking the grant of Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000, respectively, as per G.O. Ms. No. 162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 13.04.1998. They argued that around 3000 similarly placed employees had already been granted these pay scales. The drivers relied on previous decisions by the Supreme Court and the High Court of Madras, which had granted similar pay scales to petitioners in other cases. The State of Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, contended that the initial grant of these higher pay scales to some drivers was an error and that the correct pay scales were Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 for Selection Grade and Special Grade, respectively.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially allowed writ petitions filed by the drivers, directing the fixation of pay scales in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 162. This was affirmed by a Division Bench. However, a later Single Judge and the impugned judgment differed from this view, concluding that the drivers were not entitled to the higher pay scales. The High Court in the impugned judgment 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, 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.

Legal Framework

The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 162, which notified the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998. These rules revised pay scales for State Government employees and teachers on a pay scale-to-pay scale basis. Schedule I of the rules specified the revised pay scales, while Schedule II detailed the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales applicable for each revised Ordinary Grade. According to paragraph 4 of the G.O., posts with no promotional avenues would be eligible for the Selection Grade and Special Grade scales as indicated in Schedule II.

The relevant entries are:

• Schedule I, Entry No. XX: Revised Ordinary Grade pay scale for drivers from Rs. 975-1660 to Rs. 3200-4900.
• Schedule II, Serial No. 6: Selection Grade pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and Special Grade pay scale of Rs. 4300-6000, corresponding to Entry No. XX of Schedule I.
• Schedule II, Serial No. 8: Selection Grade pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and Special Grade pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Appellants argued that they were entitled to the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000, respectively, as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules.
• They relied on previous decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court that had granted similar pay scales to other drivers.
• They contended that since some drivers were already receiving the higher pay scales, they were also entitled to the same under the principle of equality.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The Respondents argued that the initial grant of higher pay scales to some drivers was an error.
• They submitted that the applicable pay scales for drivers were Rs. 4000-6000 for Selection Grade and Rs. 4300-6000 for Special Grade, as per Serial No. 6 of Schedule II, which corresponds to the revised Ordinary Grade pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900 under Entry No. XX of Schedule I.
• They claimed that the drivers were not entitled to claim parity based on an error.

The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 162. The Appellants claim that they are entitled to the revised Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule II. 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.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the Appellants 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.
2. 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.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by both parties and the authorities relied upon.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359: The Court used this case to establish that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) does not constitute a declaration of law and does not attract the doctrine of merger.
• Khoday Distilleries v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376: This case was cited to further support the view that non-speaking orders dismissing SLPs are not binding precedents.
• Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that Article 14 of the Constitution does not perpetuate illegality and that parity cannot be claimed based on a wrong order.
• State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati (Civil Appeal No. 7295/2019, judgment dated 16.09.2019): This case was cited to affirm the principle that Article 14 cannot be used to perpetuate an illegality.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the need to ensure lawful application of pay scales as per G.O. Ms. No. 162. The Court emphasized that the principle of equality cannot be used to perpetuate an illegality and that employees can only claim benefits they are lawfully entitled to. The Court also considered the historical context of pay scale revisions for drivers, tracing back to G.O. Ms. No. 666, G.O. Ms. No. 818, and G.O. Ms. No. 304, which clarified the progression of pay scales for drivers.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was influenced by a greater emphasis on legal principles and interpretation of the rules (70%) than on the factual aspects of the case (30%).

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the historical context of pay scale revisions for drivers, tracing back to G.O. Ms. No. 666, G.O. Ms. No. 818, and G.O. Ms. No. 304, which clarified the progression of pay scales for drivers.

The Court rejected the argument that the drivers were entitled to higher pay scales based on parity, emphasizing that Article 14 of the Constitution does not allow for perpetuating an illegality. The Court also noted that previous decisions granting higher pay scales were based on an incorrect interpretation of the rules.

The Court quoted from the judgment of Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81:

“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.”

The Court also quoted from the judgment:

“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.”

The Court further stated:

“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.”

The Court did not find any minority opinions in the judgment.

Key Takeaways

• Drivers in Tamil Nadu government service are entitled to the Selection Grade pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and the Special Grade pay scale of Rs. 4300-6000 as per Serial No. 6 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules under G.O. Ms. No. 162.
• Employees cannot claim parity based on an error or illegality. Article 14 of the Constitution does not allow for perpetuating wrong decisions.
• Previous court orders granting higher pay scales to some drivers were not binding precedents and did not establish a legal right for others to claim the same.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State Government to fix the pay scale benefits available to the Respondents (drivers employed at the High Court) in terms of Serial No. 6 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules under G.O. Ms. No. 162, i.e., at Rs. 3200-4900, Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that employees cannot claim parity based on an error or illegality. The Supreme Court clarified that Article 14 of the Constitution does not allow for perpetuating wrong decisions. This judgment reinforces the principle that employees are entitled only to the pay scales that they are lawfully entitled to under the applicable rules and regulations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the drivers, holding that they were not entitled to the higher pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000. The Court clarified that the correct pay scales for drivers in Tamil Nadu government service are Rs. 4000-6000 for Selection Grade and Rs. 4300-6000 for Special Grade, as per Serial No. 6 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules under G.O. Ms. No. 162. The Court emphasized that employees cannot claim parity based on an error or illegality.