Supreme Court of India
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYversusU. DINAKAR AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 434
- Decided
- 30 June 2014
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S MUKHOPADHAYA
Holding
The competent authority has inherent power to correct a genuine clerical mistake in an appointment order after giving notice and an opportunity to be heard, and the appointment was by direct recruitment, not promotion, so the respondent is not entitled to the Central pay scale.
Summary
The respondent, originally appointed Deputy Registrar, applied for the post of Registrar of the National Institute of Technology, Karnataka, and was selected by direct recruitment. The appointment letter mistakenly prescribed the Central pay scale of Rs 3000‑4500 instead of the State scale of Rs 2375‑4450 as stipulated in the advertisement. The Institute formed an enquiry committee, issued a show‑cause notice, and corrected the pay scale after giving the respondent an opportunity to be heard. The respondent challenged the correction, claiming entitlement to the higher Central scale and alleging bias in the enquiry. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was by direct recruitment, not a promotion, and that the authority could rectify a genuine clerical error after due notice, rejecting the bias claim and setting aside the High Court’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether the appointment of the respondent as Registrar was a promotion or a direct recruitment for purposes of determining the applicable pay scale.
- Whether the competent authority can correct a clerical mistake in an appointment order after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- Whether the enquiry committee investigating the pay‑scale anomaly was biased, rendering the enquiry invalid.
- Whether the respondent is entitled to the Central pay scale despite the correction to the State pay scale.
Subjects
service lawpay scaleappointmentrectification of mistakebiasnatural justicedirect recruitmentpromotion
Judgment
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 960
A NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
v.
U. DINAKAR AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.5854 of 2014)
JUNE 30, 2014
B
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]
Service Law: Revision of pay scale - Respondent no. 1
C appointed as Deputy Registrar of appellant college - Opted
for central pay scale - Application for appointment for the post
of Registrar by direct recruitment on the pay scale of Rs.-
2375-4450 - Respondent no. 1 selected and issued
appointment letter prescribing pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 -
D On discovery of mistake, inquiry conducted and show cause
notice issued to respondent no. 1 seeking an explanation as
io why pay scale shown in appointment letter be not rectified
- After consideration of reply, order of rectification passed -
Claim of respondent no. 1 for pay scale which he was drawing
E under appointment order - High Court allowed writ petition on
the ground that inquiry was tainted by bias - Held: Admittedly,
the appointment order was issued pursuant to the notification
of direct recruitment, therefore, respondent no. 1 cannot claim
that he was promoted to the post of Registrar - Mistake was
F committed by clerical staff in mentioning the words 'promoted
and appointed' in place of 'appointed' and showing higher
scale of pay of Rs.3000-4500 - It was always open to the
competent authority to correct the mistake - However, before
such correction, it is incumbent on the part of the authority to
inform the officer concerned that there is a mistake in his order
G 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 - In the instant case, the authority
H 960
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. U. 961
DINAKAR
had given notice to respondent no. 1 and brought to his notice A
that there was a genuine mistake in his letter of appointment
and he was wrongly given a higher pay of scale of Rs.3000-
4500 - 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.2375-4450,as B
provided in the advertisement/notification - Natural justice.
Bias - Plea of - Held: The bias or malafide plea is
generally raised by an interested party, the Court canpot draw
any conclusion unless allegations are substantiated beyond C
doubt - 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 by respondent no.2 - So far as the allegation of
malafide against respondent no.2 was concerned, though he D
was impleaded as a party, no specific allegation was made
to substantiate such allegation - No allf!gation was 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 E
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 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. F
Respondent No.1 was selected and appointed as
Deputy Registrar of the appellant-college in March, 1979.
While he was so performing the duty, the Department of
Education, issued a communication dated 5th February, G
1988 to the Principals of the Regional Engineering
Colleges 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
H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A Central Pay Commission which was accepted by the
Board of Governors of the appellant-Institute for the
Senior Administrative posts.
On 19th April, 1988, the Department of Education
issued another order to the effect that the non-academic
8
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
C from the present incumbents whether they would like to
opt for the Central scales of pay or State scales of pay.
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.
D 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 by
his letter dated 7th July, 1993. The appellant-Institute
issued notification dated 29th July, 1994 inviting
E 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.2375-4450.
Pursuant to the said advertisement, respondent No.1
F applied for ttie post of Registrar of the appellant Institute
and was selected and issued the appointment letter dated
16th February, 1995.
The appointment letter prescribed the Central scale
of pay i.e. Rs.3000-4500 instead of the State pay scale of
G Rs.2375-4450 as provided in the advertisement
notification.
When the appellant-Institute discovered that
respondent No.1 was drawin_g a salary higher than what
H
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. U. 963
DINAKAR
he was entitled to due to the anomaly in the A
advertisement and the letter of appointment, it appointed
a five-members Enquiry Committee, which comprised of
respondent No.2 as the Chairman and 4 other Members,
to look into the matter.
B
Based on the recommendation of the Enquiry
Committee, a show cause notice 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 c
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 explanation as to recovery of 0
excess pay drawn by respondent No.1 be not made. The
2ppellant-lnstitute, after considering the reply filed by
respondent No.1 issued an order rectifying the pay sca'le·
of respondent No.1 deleted the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500
mentioned in the appointment letter dated 16th February, E
1995 was deleted and substituted it with pay scale of
Rs.2375-4450 and accordingly refixed the salary as per
. the said pay scale.
Aggrieved respondent No.1 · filed an appeal
challenging the aforesaid order and claiming the pay F
scale which he was drawing under the appointment
order. The Board of Governors rejected the appeal filed
by respondent No.1. Pursuant to the said order, the
appellant-Institute issued an order whereby the pay scale
of respondent No.1 was fixed in the State pay scale of G
Rs.2375-4450 with effect from 20th February, 1995. He
was granted the revised equivalent pay scale of Rs.7400-
12320.
H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before the High
Court 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
B 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
c respondent No.1 to refund the excess salary of
Rs.4, 763.50 paid to him. The appellant-Institute also filed
a counter-affidavit in the writ petition denying all the
allegations and justifying the order impugned. The Single
Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
However, the Division Bench of the High Court, allowed
0
the appeal on the ground that the enquiry was tainted by
bias and that there was a mistr.ke in the orde.r of
appointment issued in favour of respondent no.1, it was
open to the competent authority to rectify the mistake.
The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the
E High Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Appointment to the post of Registrar was
F made by the Institute by direct recruitment pursuant to
notification dated 29th July, 1994. The notification
unequivocally stated that the scale of pay applicable to the
post of Registrar is Rs.2375-4450 and that besides the
basic pay in the applicable time scale of pay of the
G respective posts, admissible allowances in accordance
with Karnataka Government Rules as in force from time to
time were payable. Pursuant to the said notification
respondent no.1 was appointed as Registrar by letter
dated 16th July, 1995. However, in the letter of appointment
H
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. U. 965
DINAKAR
the Central scale of pay of Rs.3000-4500 with other A
allowances were mentioned. [para 22) [974-E-G]
2. It was 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
8
case of respondent no.1 was 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 to notification dated 29th C
Ju.ly, 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 was
promoted and appointed as Registrar in the office of the
Karnataka Regional Engineering College. Admittedly, the
appointment order was issued pursuant to the D
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.3000-4500, it was E
always open to the competent authority to correct the
mistake. However, before s.uch correction it was
incumbent on the part of the authority to inform the officer
concerned that there was a mistake in his order of
appointment and competent authority intends to .correct F
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. In the instant
case, the authority had given notice to respondent no.1
and brought to his notice that there is a genuine mistake G
in his letter of appointment and he has been 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
H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R.
A recruitment but his case was considered by way of
promotion. In that view of the matter, 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. In view of
B the said finding, the appellant had committed no error in
correcting .the;letter of appointment by replacing the
correct ,cale of pay to which respondent no.1 was
·.entitled'. i~e. Rs.2375-4450 as provided in the
adve'rtlsement/notification dated 29th July, 1994. [Paras
C 23 to 27] [974-H; 975-A-H; 976-A-B]
3. The bias or malafide plea is generally raised by an
interested party, the ~ourt cannot draw any conclusion
unless allegations are substantiated beyond doubt. So far
as the allegation of malafide against respondent no.2 was
D 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
E constituted a five-members Enquiry Committee to look
into the matter headed by respondent no.2. Though
allegation of bias has been made against respondent
no.2, no allegation has been made against rest of tl')e four
Members of the Committee. Even the other members
F 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 c.ther member of the Committee, who decided the
issue pursuant to which the. notice was issued to
respondent no.1. The High Court while wrongly held that
G the enquiry was tainted with bias, erred in holding that
respondent no.1 was entitled to the Central scale of pay.
The impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench
of th'e High Court is set aside. [Paras 28, 29] [976-C-G]
H
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. U. 967
DINAKAR
M. V. Thimmaiah and others v. Union Public Service A
Commission and others (2008) 2 SCC 119: 2007 (13) SCR
624 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2007 (13) SCR 624 referred to Para 28 B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5854 of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2011 in WA
No.1030/2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Banglore. C
H.P. Raval, Anirudh Sharma, Divya Anand for the
appellant.
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Shailesh Madiyal, Mahesh Kumar, D
Aswathi for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave
granted. E
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
F
the Central pay scale and denial of such scale would be bad
in law.
3. The factual matrix of the case is as foHows:
G
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
H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India issued a communication
bearing No.F.No.A 11014/2/87/T-4 dated 5th February, 1988 to
the Principals of all Regional Engineering Colleges (except
Srinagar and Jaipur) revising the scales of pay attached to the
B 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
c 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
D 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
E 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
F of the order dated 19th April, 1.988 which is necessary for
adjudication of this appeal is as under: ·
"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
G
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
H
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. U. 969
DINAKAR [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
incumbents to all these posts may be given State pay A
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 B
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 c
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 D
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 E
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 F
appointed as and when, the existing incumbents would 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 G
indicated in Column 4 of the Statement below:
H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R.
A S. No. Names of Present Revised 1986
the post scale now scale of pay
approved as approved
(w.e.f. of by Govt. Of
.
pay) India
B
1. Registrar Rs.3000-100- Rs.2200-5-
3500-125-4500 2300-75-2900-
90-2350-100-.
. 3950-120-4070
c 2. Workshop Rs.3000-100- Rs.2200-5-
Supdt. 3500-125-4500 2300-75-2900-
90-2350-100-
3950-120-4070
D 3. Deputy Rs.2200-75- Rs.1900-50-
Registrar 2800-EB-100- 2300-75-2900-
4000 90-335d-100-
3650 .
'
4. Librarian '
Rs.2200-075- Rs.1900-50-
E
2800-EB-100- 2300-75-2900
4000 -90-3350-1 00-
3650
7. Respondent No.1, wl'lo was working as Deputy Registrar
F 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,
G beca!l'le vacant during this period. Therefore, the appellant"
Institute issued notification Nd.5295/ESTT/12/81 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
H to the post of Registrar is Rs.2375-75-200-100-3700-125-
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. U. 971
DINAKAR [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
4450 and that besides the basic pay in the applicable time scale A
of pay of the respective posts, 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:
B
"4. Registrar: 1 post (Principa/'s office)
(Scale of pay Rs.2375-75-200-100-3700-125-4450).
II. Details of qualification/Experience/ specialization
required: C
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
General Instructions:
(i) In· ease a candidate for the-.advertised post is not o
suitable for the post, the next lower position may be
offered to the candidates, it he is fou.nd suitable for the
lower position.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
E
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."
F
9. Pursuant to the said advertisement, responde~t No.1
applied for the post of Registrar of the appellant lnstitut~; ."f'he
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.
' G
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 cif pay i.e.
H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R.
A Rs.3000-100-3500-125-4500 instead of the State 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
8 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,
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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 explanation as to recovery of excess pay drawn by
respondent No.1 be not made.
G 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
H rectifying the. pay scale of respondent No.1. Accordingly,· the
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. U. 973
DINAKAR [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 mentioned in the appointment letter A
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 B
by the appeliant-lnstitute, respondent No.1 filed an appeal
challenging the aforesaid order and claiming the pay scale
which he was drawing under the appointment ord~r. The Board
of Governors in its 128th meeting dated 30th September, 1999/
13th October, 1999 rejected the appeal filed by respondent C
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 D
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.
\
17. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition E
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 F
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-
G-
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.
H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A 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
8
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
C that the enquiry was tainted by bias. According to· appellant,
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
D 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/
E ESTT/12/81 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
F 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.
G
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 notifi~d by the Institute. The case oi·
respondent no.1 is also not a case of promotion so as to enable
H him to claim Central scale of pay, which he was drawing against
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. U. 975
_ DINAKAR [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
lower post of Deputy Registrar. The case of respondent no.1 A
being that of the direct recruitment pursuant 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 B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
respondent no.1 and brought to his notice that there is a
genuine mistake in his letter of appointment and he has been
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. G
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.
H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R.
A 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
B 29th July, 1994.
28. The bias or malafide plea is generally raised by all
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
C 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
D 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 by Dr.Balaveera
1
Reddy. Though allegation of bias has been made against
Dr.Balaveera Reddy, no allegation has been made against rest·
E 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.
F 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
G Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal
No.1030 of 2006. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search