STATE OF WEST BENGALversusSUBHAS KUMAR CHATTERJEE & ORS.

                         [2010] 10 S.C.R. 108


A                     STATE OF WEST BENGAL
                                    V.
              SUBHAS KUMAR CHATTERJEE & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 5538 of 2008)
                           AUGUST 17, 2010
B
       [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH
                      NIJJAR, JJ.]

         Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:
c         s. 19 - Application before tribunal by certain employees
    of West Bengal, seeking revision of scale of pay and fixation
    of benefits - Tribunal directing the Chief Engineer to decide
    the application - Chief Engineer revising the scale of pay -
    Order of tribunal acceptin_g claim of employees accordingly
0
    - Upheld by High Court - On appeal, held: In the State of
    West Bengal pay scales are fixed under statutory Rules -
    Administrative tribunals by their orders cannot create!
    constitute any quasi-judicial authorities and entrust matters
E   for their decision which otherwise are not within their jurisdiction
    - Order of tribunal directing Chief Engineer to decide the
    dispute with regard to pay scales is void ab initio and cannot
    be given effect to - Administrative decisions by executive
    authorities do not bind the courts, much less operate as res
    judciata - No court can issue Mandamus directing the
F   authorities to act in contravention of the Rules - Decision of
    Chief Engineer being contrary to ROPA Rules, 1998, cannot
    be enforced even if such a decision was taken under the
    directions of the tribunal - Orders of High Court as well tribunal
G   set aside - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Service
    law - West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowances)
    Rules, 1998 - Res judciata.

         s. 19 - Jurisdiction of tribunal - Tribunal directing

H                                  108
   STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUBHAS KUMAR                   109
             CHATTERJEE & ORS.
application to be decided by executive authority- Held: Power    A
conferred upon the Administrative Tribunals under the
provisions of the Act flows from Article 323-A of the
Constitution - Such power can never be delegated except
under a valid law made by Parliament - Tribunals in the
country henceforth should not repeat such practice of sending    B
the original applications filed before them to the Executive
Authorities for their disposal - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 323-A.

     The post of Senior Laboratory Assistant, in the Roads       c
and Buildings Research Institute and various other
divisions under the Public Works (Roads) Department, is
the feeder post to the Research Assistant. Under the
Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules, 1981, the pay
scale for the post of Research Assistant was fixed at scale      o
no. 9 (Rs. 300-910) and for the post of Senior Laboratory
Assistant at scale no.. 6 (Rs. 300-685). The Senior
Laboratory Assistants filed a writ petition claiming scale
no. 11 under the Rules on the allegation that they were
performing similar duties as that of Senior Research             E
Assistants. The Single Judge of the High Court granted
scale no. 11, however, passed a direction that the said
pay scale would be paid w.e.f 1st April, 1981. The 3rd Pay
Commission constituted for the State of West Bengal
granted only scale no. 6 (revised to Rs. 1040-1920) to the       F
Senior Laboratory Assistants and scale no. 9 (revised to
Rs. 1260-2610) for the Research Assistants. The State
Government framed West Bengal Services (Revision of
Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1990 allowing scale nos. 6
and 9 respectively to the Senior Laboratory Assistants           G
and Research Assistants. The 4th Pay Commission
retained the same pay scales. However, the pay structure
was revised. The State Government of West Bengal
framed West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and
Allowances) Rules, 1998;                                         H
    110       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2010] 10 S.C.R.


A       Thereafter, the respondents-Research Assistants
   filed an application before the tribunal seeking revision
   of scale of pay and fixation of benefits w.e.f 1st April, 1981
   in scale no. 14. The tribunal directed the Chief Engineer,
   Public Works (Roads} Directorate to dispose of the
B application by a reasoned order. The Chief Engineer
   extended the scale no. 11 to the respondents. Thereafter,
  .the tribunal directed the State to revise the pay scale in
   terms of the orders of the Chief Engineer. The appellant-
   State filed a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the
C writ petition and upheld the order passed by the tribunal.
   Therefore, the appellant-State filed the instant appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1.1 The tribunals cannot travel beyond the
D power conferred on them and delegate their essential
   function and duty to decide service related disputes.
   Such delegation is ab· initio void. No judicial tribunal can
   delegate its responsibilities except where it is authorized
   to do so expressly. The power conferred upon the
E Administrative Tribunals under the provisions of the
   Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 flows from Article 323-
   A of the Constitution of India, 1950. Such power can never
   be delegated except under a valid law made by
   Parliament The tribunals by their own act cannot delegate
F the power to decide any dispute which in law is required
   to be decided exclusively by such tribunals. Such is the
   extent of awesome powers and jurisdiction conferreci
   upon the tribunals. It is their bounden duty to adjudicate
   the matters coming before them but not delegate its
G jurisdiction to extra-constitutional authorities. Such
   practice is fraught with undesirable consequences
   destroying the very purpose and scheme under which
  ·they are created and constituted to adjudicate disputes

H
   STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUBHAS KUMAR               111
             CHATTERJEE & ORS.
in specified areas. The tribunals in the country henceforth: A
should not repeat such practice of sending the original
applications filed before them to the Executive Authorities
for their disposal. The order of the Administrative Tribunal
directing the Chief Engineer, Public Works (Roads)
Directorate to decide the dispute raised by the B
respondents with regard to their pay scales is void ab
initio and cannot be given effect to. [Paras 19 and 24]
[120-F-H; 121-A-D; 122-E]

     1.2 The Chief Engineer while acting under the c
directions of the tribunal passed the order declaring that
the respondents are entitled to the relief as prayed for by
them and accordingly granted scale no. 11 to the
respondents. In the State of West Bengal pay scales are
fixed under the statutory Rules. The Chief Engineer 0
completely ignored the statutory rules under which the
respondents are entitled to only scale no. 9. The
Government did not implement the same. The
respondents once again approached the tribunal seeking
appropriate directions for implementation of the order E
passed by the Chief Engineer. The tribunal having
allowed the application of the respondents held that they
are entitled to fixation of pay as recommended by the
Chief Engineer and the State must give effect to th.e same.
It cannot be appreciated as to how the Administrative F
Tribunal could have directed the State to implement the
recommendations of the Chief Engineer which run
counter not only to the recommendations of the Pay
Commission but also the West Bengal Services (Revision
of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1981. [Paras 15 and 16] G
[119-C-F]

    1.3 The High Court while rejecting the writ petition
held that the Chief Engineer has discharged "a solemn
duty undertaking the task of quasi-judicial duty has now
                                                            H
    112     SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A reached its finality. Now, it is a question of
  implementation of the same". The High Court went to the
  extent of holding that the decision rendered by the Chief
  Engineer pursuant to the order of the tribunal operates
  as res judicata if not issue estoppel. The High Court
B advanced such an unstatable proposition. The Chief
  Engineer did not undertake atly task of discharging of
  any quasi-judicial duty. The Administrative Tribunals by
  their orders cannot create and constitute any quasi-
  judicial authorities and entrust matters for their decision
C which otherwise are not within their jurisdiction. [Para 22)
  [121•G-H; 122-A]

        1.4 The High Court fell into serious error in
    construing the orders passed by the Chief Engineer as
0 a decision. There was no adjudication as such of any lis
    between the parties by the Chief Engineer. The Chief
    Engineer in law was not entitled to decide any dispute
  . and much less with regard to any dispute and complaint
    with respect to conditions of service of any persons
E appointed to public posts controlled by the State
    Government. The Chief Engineer was not acting in any
    judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. Administrative
    decisions by the executive authorities do not bind the
    courts and much less operate as res judciata. In the
F circumstances, the view taken by the Chief Engineer that
    the respondents were entitled to scale No.11, cannot
    operate as res judicata. [Para 25) [122-F-H; 123-A]

        1.5 The State Government having accepted the
    recommendations of the successive Pay Commissions
G   gave effect to those recommendations ·by framing
    statutory rules being ROPA Rules and scales of the
    employees have been accordingly fixed. The
    respondents did not challenge the vires of the Rules
    under which they were entitled to only a particular scale
H
   STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUBHAS KUMAR                113
             CHATTERJEE & ORS.
of pay. The State Government is under obligation to           A
follow the statutory Rules and give only such pay scales
as are prescribed under the statutory provisions. Neither
the Government can act contrary to the Rules nor the
court can direct the Government to act contrary to Rules.
No Mandamus lies for issuing directions to a Government       B
to refrain from enforcing a provision of law. No court can
issue Mandamus directing the authorities to act in
contravention of the Rules as it would amount to
compelling the authorities to violate the law. Such
directions may result in destruction of rule of law. In the   C
instant case, the impugned order of the High Court
virtually compelled the State to give pay scales contrary
to statutory Rules under which pay scales of the
employees are fixed. The decision of the Chief Engineer
being contrary to West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay       D
and Allowances) Rules, 1998, cannot be enforced even
if such a decision was taken under the directions of the
Administrative Tribunal. The orders of the tribunal as well
as of the High Court suffer from incurable infirmities and
are set aside. [Para 26] [123-B-F]                            E
                      \
     1.7 Courts should avoid giving a declaration granting
a particular scale of pay and compel the Government to
implement the same. Equation of posts and equation of
salaries is a matter which is best left to an expert body. F
Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and
responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the
executive to discharge. Even the recommendations of the
Pay Commissions are subject to acceptance or rejection,
the Courts cannot compel the State to accept the G
recommendations of the Pay Commissions though it is
an expert body. The State in its wisdom and in
furtherance of its valid policy may or may not accept the
recommendations of the Pay Commission. The
constitutional courts clothed with power of judicial review H
    114         SUPREME COURT REPORTS           (2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   have jurisdiction and the aggrieved empfoyees have
    remedy only if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State
    action or inaction while fixing the pay scale for a given
    post. [Para 13] [118-C-F]

B       Union of India v. Arun Jyoti Kundu 2007 (7) SCC 472;
    State of Haryana and Anr. v. Haryana Civil Secretariat
    Personal Staff Assn. 2002 (6) SCC 72 - relied on.
                          Case Law Reference:

c         2001 (7) sec ...12      Relied on.            Para 13
          2002 (6) sec 12         Relied on.            Para 13
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    5538 of 2008.
D
        From the Judgment & Order dated 19.12.2007 of the High
    Court of Calcutt~ in W.P.S.T.No. 33 of 2007.

       Bhaskar P. Gupta, Hana Mukherjee, Anchan Chakraborty,
    Goowill lndeevar for the Appellant.
E
         Dipak Kumar Jena, Minakshi Ghosh Jena Manmohan for
    the Respondents. .

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F        B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 1. This appeal by special
    leave is dire.cted against the final judgment and order dated
    19th December, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the
    High Court of Calcutta in W.P.s".T No. 33 of 2007 whereby and
    whereunder the High Court dismissed the writ petition preferred
G   by the State of West Bengal, appellant herein and confirmed
    the judgment and o_rder dated 18th August, 2005 passed by
    the State Administrative Tribunal, West Bengal.

          2. /In order to consider the question as to whether the
            '
H
  STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUBHAS KUMAR                        115
 CHATTERJEE & ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
judgment suffers from any infirmities requiring our interference,    A
it may be just and necessary to notice the relevant facts.

      3. The controversy involved in the present matter requiring
resolution centers around the issue as to whether the Senior
Laboratory Assistants in the Roads and Buildings Research
Institute and various other divisions under the Public Works         B
(Roads) Department, Government of West Bengal are entitled
to the same pay scale at par with the Research Assistants in
the same department?

       4. On 4th July, 19?i the Government of West Bengal, in        C
  exercise of its power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of
  the Constitution of India made the Rules for regulation of
  recruitment to the post of Senior Research Assistant, Research
  Assistant and Senior Laboratory Assistant in the Roads and
  Buildings Research Institute and various other divisions under     D
  the Public Works (Roads) Department. The post of Senior
  Laboratory Assistant is a feeder to the post of Research
. Assistant. The pay scale fixed under the Revision of Pay and
  Allowances Rules, 1981 (for short ROPA Rules) for the post
  of Research Assistant was scale no. 9 ( Rs. 300-910) and for       E
  the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant scale no. 6 (Rs. 300-
  685).

      5. In the year 1982, three Senior Laboratory Assistants
filed a Writ Petition in the Calcutta High Court claiming scale
no. 11 under ROPA Rules on the allegation that they were             F
performing similar duties as that of Senior Research Assistants.
The said Writ Petition was disposed of by a learned Single
Judge of the High Court granting scale no. 11 as claimed by
the writ petitioners therein vide judgment dated 25th November,
1987. Be it noted that the said writ petition was.disposed of        G
on the doctrine of non-traverse since the State Government was
unrepresented and no affidavit filed on its behalf. However, the
learned Judge granted relief directing the said pay scale to be
paid w.e.f 1st April, 1981 but, directed that the petitioners
therein would be entitled to arrears only w.e.f April, 1987. The     H
    116       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   State was also directed to place the matter before the 3rd Pay
    Commission so that the Commission could consider the case
    of the Senior Laboratory Assistants for higher scale duly taking
    into consideration their qualifications and duties.

B         6. On 30th June 1987, 3rd Pay Commission for the State
    ~f West Bengal was constituted to consider the revision of pay
  and emoluments of its employees. The Commission submitted
  its report in December, 1988, granting only scale 6 (revised to
  Rs. 1040-1920) to the Senior Laboratory Assistants and scale
  9 (revised to Rs. 1260-2610) for the Research Assistants. The
C State Government having accepted the recommendations
  framed ROPA Rules, 1990 allowing scale nos. 6 and 9
  respectively to the Senior Laboratory Assistants and Research
  Assistants. The 4th Pay Commission retained the same pay
  scales. However, the pay structure was revised. The State
D Government accordingly framed ROPA Rules, 1998.

       7. The respondents herein who are the Research
  Assistants ·approached the Tribunal after a period of more than
  12 years claiming revision of scale of pay and fixation of
E benefits w.e.f 1st April, 1981 in scale no. 14. Their case
  essentially was based upon the judgment of the High Court in
  Writ Petition No. 2893W of 1982 granting scale no. 11 to Senior
  Laboratory Assistant which was the feeder post to the Research
  Assistant and therefore, the Research Assistants were entitled
F to the proportionate hike in their scale of pay. The Tribunal
  disposed of the O.A filed by the respondents herein directing
  the Chief Engineer, Public Works (Roads) Directorate to treat
  the application filed before it along with its annexures as a
  representation and to dispose of the same by a reasoned
G order.
        8. Be that as it may, by order dated 31st August, 2001 the
    Chief Engineer extended the scale no. 11 to the respondents
    which was not acceptable to the State Government. The
    respondents once again approached the Administrative
H
  STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUBHAS KUMAR                         117
 CHATTERJEE & ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
Tribunal in the year 2002 seeking apprppriate directions as           A
against the State to revise the pay scale in terms of the orders
of the Chief Engineer. The Tribunal while rejecting the
objections of the State that the Chief Engineer was not
competent to modify or amend ROPA Rules as he did by his
order, allowed the claim of the respondents.                          B

      9. The appellant State challenged the said order of the
 Tribunal in a writ petition filed before the High Court. The High
 Court vide impugned order dismissed the writ petition and
 confirmed the order of the Tribunal. Hence this appeal.
                                                                      c
       10. Shri Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned senior counsel
  submitted that the impugned order suffers from errors apparent
  on the face of the record. The High Court completely
  misdirected itself in deciding the matter in controversy by
  ignoring the well settled legal principles. It was submitted that   D
  Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules (ROPA) are framed by
  the Government of West Bengal by the directions of the
  Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and are
  binding in their nature. The Rules are amended from time to
  time based upon the recommendations of successive Pay               E
  Commissions. The successive Pay Commissions have
  consistently recommended scale no. 9 for the Research
  Assistants to which category the respondents belong. The State
  cannot be compelled to act contrary to statutory rules framed
  by it in exercise of the powers under proviso to Article 309 of     F
  the Constitution. It was also submitted that the Pay Commission
  fixed pay scales after evaluation of duties of the concerned
  class of employees, educational qualifications, total pay
  structure, finances of the Government and various other factors.
· The State having accepted the recommendations made                  G
  necessary amendments to the Rules and cannot be compelled
  to make isolated changes in one of the category inasmuch as
  such a change may have a cascading effect on the whole pay
  structure of its employees.

      11. The learned counsel for the respondents strongly            H
    118        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A supported the impugned judgment. It was submitted that the
  Government having implemented the directions of the learned
  Single Judge in case of Senior Laboratory Assistants in the
  feeder category, cannot fix the pay scales of Research
  Assistants in the lower pay scale than that of the Senior
s Laboratory Assistants.
        12. Now we shall proceed to consider the submissions
    made by the counsel during. the course of the hearing of this·
    appeal.                                                    ·

c       13. This Court time and again cautioned that the court
  should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of
  pay and compel the Government to implement the same.
  Equation of posts and equation of salaries is a matter which
  is best left to an expert body. Fixation of pay and determination
D of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which
  is for the executive to discharge. Even the recommendations
  of the Pay Commissions are subject to acceptance or rejection,
  th.e Courts cannot compel the State to accept the
  recommendations of the Pay Commissions though it is an
E expert body. The State in its wisdom and in furtherance of its
  valid policy may or may not accept the r~commendations of the
  Pay Commission. [See: Union of India V. Arun Jyoti f:<undu 1
  and State of Haryana & Anr. V. Ha,lyana Civil Secretariat
  Personal Staff Assn 2}. It ii; no doubt, tlile constitutional courts
F clothed with power of judicial review h~ve jurisdiction and the
  aggrieved employees have remedy only if they are unjustly
  treated by arbitrary State action or inaction while fixing the pay
  scale for a given post.         1
                                          •   •




       14. In the present case} the 3rd Pay Commission vide its
G recommendations made in December, 1988 allowed only scale
  no. 6, to the Senior Laboratory Assistants and sc~le no. 9, for
  the Research Assistants. The Government having iccepted the

    1.    (2007) 7 sec 472.
                                                       I
H 2. (2002) a sec 12
 STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUBHAS KUMAR                        119
CHATTERJEE & ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
recommendations framed rules allowing scale no. 6 and 9, A
respectively to the Senior Laboratory Assistants and Research
Assistant$'. The 4th Pay Commission retained same scales
though the actual pay structure was revised. It appears from the
record that in the State of West of Bengal pay scales are fixed
under statutory rules. The constitutional Validity of those rules . B
under which the ·pay scales are fixed has not been challenged.
     15. Be that as it may, the Chief Engineer while acting
under the directions of the Tribunal passed the order declaring
that the respondents are entitled to the relief as prayed for by
them and accordingly granted scale no. 11 to the respondents.      C
Th~ Chief Engineer completely ignored the statutory rules under
whlch the respondents are entitled to only scale no. 9. The
Go~ernment did not implement the same. The respondents
on·~e again approa'ched the Tribunal seeking appropriate
dir~tions for implementation of the order passed by the Chief      D
Engineer.
   , .. 16. The Tribunal vide its order dated 18th August, 2005·
having allowed the OA of the Respor1dents held that they are
entitled to fixation of pay as recommended by the Chief
Engineer and State must give effect to the same. We fail to        E
ap.Rreciate as to how the Administrative Tribunal could have
dirgcted the State to implement the recommendations of the
Chief Engineer which 'run counter not only to the
redi>mmendations of the Pay Commission but also the ROPA
Rui~s. 1998.                                                       F
   ~~ 17. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the
appellant-State of West Bengal filed a writ petition in the High
Court of Calcutta and the same was dismissed by the High
Court. The High Court while upholding the validity of the order
passed by the Administrative Tribunal adopted a very peculiar      G
rea_son which in our considered opinion is totally untenable and
uns'ustainable in law. The High Court took the view that "the
Tribunal, in exercise of its power under Article 226 read with
Se.ction 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, has
  i'                                                               H
    120      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010) 10 S.C.R.


A delegated rather conferred power upon" the Chief Engineer
  "to decide the issue and has done it with reason and the same
  remains unchallenged. As such, even if on fact or in :/aw, both
  the two orders might or might not be correct one, once the
  same is passed and is not set aside by the appropriate forum
a and the same is binding between the parties."
       18. According to the High Court the decision of the Chief
  Engineer is a quasi judicial one.in its nature and the same has
  been passed in exercise of delegation of powers by the
  Tribunal to decide the dispute between the parties as regards
C the fixation of pay scales. The High Court also held that the
  order of the Chief Engineer operates as res-judicata. We shall
  deal with this aspect of the matter a little later.
                                                                   •I

          19. This court on more than one occasion decried such
    practices adopted by the tribunals directing applications filed.
0   before them to be treated as representations before the
    executive authorities for their decision on merits. It is for the
    tribunals that are 'empowered to examine service disputes on
    merits. Such delegation of power apart from being illegal ·and
    unconstitutional amounts to avoidance of constitutional duties
E   and functions to decide such disputes which are exclusively
    entrusted to them by law. In pursuance of the power conferred
    upon it by Clause (1) of Article 323-A of the Constitution,
    Parliament enacted Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Ttie
    Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, indicates that it
F   was being enacted to provide for the adjudication or trial by
    Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with
    respect to recruitment and conditions 9f service of persons
    appointed to public services and posts in connection with the
    affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other
G   authority within the territory of India. Chapter Ill deals with the
    jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunals. Sections 14,
     15 and 16 deal with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the
    Central Administrative Tribunals, the State Administrative
    Tribunals and the Joint Administrative Tribunals respectively.
H   The Tribunals under the Act possess jurisdiction and powers
  STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUBHAS KUMAR                          121
 CHATTERJEE & ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
of every other court in the country except the jurisdiction of the     A
Supra.me Court, in respect of all service related matters. The
Administrative Tribunals are conferred with the jurisdiction to
hear matters where even the vires of statutory provisions are
in question. Their function, however, in this regard is only
supplementary inasmuch as such decisions are subject to                B
scrutiny of the High Courts. Such is the extent of awesome
powers and jurisdiction conferred upon.the Tribunals. It is their
bounden duty to adjudicate the matters coming before them but
not delegate its jurisdiction to extra constitutional authorities.
Such practice is fraught with undesirable consequences                 c
destroying the very purpose and scheme under which they are
 created and constituted to adjudicate disputes in specified
 areas. We hope and trust that the Tribunals in the country
 henceforth will ..not repeat such practice of sending the original
 applications filed before them to the Executive Authorities for       D
 their disposal.
 ·' 20: The origin of this controversy lies and is traceable to
the improper exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal remitting
the original application made to it to the Chief Engineer for his
decision. We are at a loss to appreciate as to how the tribunal        E
could have issued such a direction virtually surrendering. its
jurisdiction to the Chief Engineer.
    21. Now we shall revert to the question as to whether the
High Court was justified in rejecting the writ petition filed by the
appellant herein.                                                      F
      22. The High Court while rejecting the writ petition held that
the Chief Engineer has discharged "a solemn duty undertaking
the task of quasi-judicial duty has now reached its finality. Now,
itis a question of implementation of the same". The High Court         G
went to the extent of holding that the decision rendered by the
Chief Engineer pursuant to the order of the Tribunal operates
as res judicata if not issue estoppel. We are bewildered to note
thatthe High Court advanced such an unstatable proposition.
The Chief Engineer did not undertake any task of discharging
of any quasi-judicial duty. The Administrative Tribunals by their      H
    122       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   orders cannot create and constitute any quasi-judicial
    authorities and entrust matters for their decision which
    otherwise are not within their jurisdiction.
        23. Whether the Administrative Tribunal can delegate its
  power of judicial review and confer the same upon a Chief
B Engineer? The Tribunals cannot travel beyond the power
  conferred on them and delegate their essential function and
  duty to decide service related disputes. Such delegation is ab
  initio void. It is too elementary to restate that no judicial tribunal
  can delegate its responsibilities except where it is authorized
C to do so expressly. The power conferred upon the
  Administrative Tribunals under the provisions of the said· Act
  flows from Article 323-A of the Constitution. Such power can
  never be delegated except under a valid law made by
  Parliament. The Tribunals by their own act cannot delegate the
D power to decide any dispute which in law is required to be
  decided exclusively by such Tribunals.
      24. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the
  Administrative Tribunal directing the Chief Engineer, Public
  Works (Roads) Directorate to decide the dispute raised by the
E respondents with regard to their pay scales is void ab initio and
  cannot be given effect to.
       25. The next question that arises for our consideration is
  whether the decision of Chief Engineer operates as res-
F judicata? The High Court fell into serious error in construing the
  orders passed by the Chief Engineer as a decision: There was
  no adjudication as such of any lis between the parties by the
  Chief Engineer. The Chief Engineer in law was not entitled to
  decide any dispute and much less with regard to any dispute
G and complaint with respect to conditions of service of any
  persons appointed to public posts controlled by the State
  Government. The Chief Engineer was not acting in any judicial
  or quasi-judicial capacity. Administrative decisions by the
  executive authorities do not bind the courts and much less
  operate as res judciata. In the circumstances, the view taken
H by the Chief Engineer that the respondents were entitled to .
   STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUBHAS KUMAR      123
  CHATTERJEE & ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
scale No.11, cannot operate as res judicata.                        A
       26. Yet another question that arises for our consideration
 is whether a writ of mandamus lies compelling the State to act
 contrary to law? The State Government having accepted the
 recommendations of the successive Pay Commissions gave
 effect to those recommendations by framing statutory rules 8
 being ROPA Rules and scales of the employees have been
  accordingly fixed. The respondents did not challenge the vires
  of the said Rules under which they were entitled to only a
  particular scale of pay. The State Government is under
  obligation to follow the statutory rules and give only such pay C
  scales as are prescribed under the statutory provisions. Neither
  the Government can act contrary to the rules nor the Court can
  direct the Government to act contrary to rules. No Mandamus
  lies for issuing directions to a ·Government to refrain from
  enforcing a provision of law. No court can issue Mandamus D
  directing the authorities to act in contravention of the rules as
  it would amount to compelling the authorities to violate law. Such ·
  directions may result in destruction of rule of law. In the instant
  case, the impugned order of the High Court virtually compelled
  the State to give pay scales contrary to statutory rules under E
  which pay scales of the employees are fixed. The decision of
  the Chief Engineer being contrary to ROPA Rules, 1998, cannot
  be enforced even if such a decision was taken under the
· directions of the Administrative Tribunal. The orders of the
  Tribunal as well as of the High Court suffer from incurable F
  infirmities and are liable to be set aside.
      27. For the reasons above, the impugned judgment of the
 High Court as well as the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside.
 However, the amounts if any paid to the respondents pursuant
 to the impugned orders shall not be recovered.                     G
      28. The appeal is accordingly allowed without any order
 as to costs.

 N.J.                                           Appeal allowed.
                                                                    H