Supreme Court of India
YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS.versusNATIONAL INST. EDU. PLANNING & ADMN. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 715
- Decided
- 21 October 2010
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- DALVEER BHANDARI
Holding
The petitioners are entitled to the revised pay‑scale of Rs.1640‑2900 and the institutes cannot recover any amount already paid.
Summary
The petitioners, who were Assistants and Stenographers employed by the National Institute of Educational Planning & Administration and the Sahitya Academy, claimed entitlement to the revised pay‑scale of Rs.1640‑2900 that had been granted to their counterparts in the Central Government by the IV Pay Commission and the Anomalies Removal Committee. The High Court Division Bench had set aside an earlier order of a Single Judge that had directed the institutes to grant the revised scale, and the institutes sought to recover the additional salary already paid. The Supreme Court examined the service regulations of the institutes, which expressly required salary parity with the Central Government for comparable posts. It held that the petitioners were indeed entitled to the revised pay‑scale from 1 January 1986 and that the institutes could not recover any amount already paid, as there was no mis‑representation or fraud on the part of the employees. Consequently, the Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment and allowed the appeals, directing the institutes to continue paying the revised scale.
Issues considered
- Whether Assistants/Stenographers in autonomous institutions are entitled to the same revised pay‑scale as their Central Government counterparts under the IV Pay Commission and Anomalies Removal Committee recommendations.
- Whether the employer institute can recover the additional salary already paid to the employees after granting the revised pay‑scale.
- Whether the High Court Division Bench was justified in overturning the Single Judge’s order granting parity.
Subjects
pay parityservice regulationspay commissionassistantsstenographersautonomous institutionssalary recoveryequal pay
Judgment
[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 22
YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS.
v.
NATIONAL INST. EDU. PLANNING & ADMN. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 288-289 of 2005)
OCTOBER 21, 2010
B
[DALVEER BHADARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]
Service Law - Pay-scale - Parity - Claim of pay parity
with the counterparts in Central Government as granted by/V
c Pay Commission- Held: The claimants are entitled to the
same pay-scale as was given to the employees of their
categories by the IV Pay Commission- The additional
amount cannot be recovered from the claimants who have
already received the benefit of the revised pay-scale.
D The question for consideration in Civil Appeal Nos.
288-289/2005 was whether the appellants (Assistants/
Stenographers-employed with respondent No. 1-
lnstitution) were entitled to pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 (as
revised by IV Pay Commission and enhanced by
E Anomalies Removal Committee) from the date when their
counterparts were given that pay-scale in the Central
Government.
In Civil Appeal No. 290/2007, the appellants who were
F Assistants/Stenographers in the respondent-Academy,
an autonomous organization, filed a writ petition seeking
to quash the Central Government Orders whereby it was
provided that revised pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 granted
to Assistants/Stenographers of Central Secretariat would
not be applicable to the Assistants/Stenographers of
G autonomous organizations, and also asking for a further
direction that the revised pay-scale be granted to them.
Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ petition
granting revised pay-scale. In LPA, Division Bench of the
H 22
·,
YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS. v. NATIONAL INST. 23
EDU. PLANNING & ADMN.
High Court held that the appellants were not entitled to A
the revised pay-scale. Review against the order was also
dismissed. Therefore, the instant appeal was filed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 8
Civil Appeal No. 288"289/2005
1.1 The Division Bench was not justified in setting
aside the judgment of the Single Judge. The Division
Bench did not consider the service regulations of the C
National lhstitute of Educational Planning and
Administration. The case of appellant No.1 was not even
discussed or considered in the impugned judgment.
[Para 13] [33-D]
1.2 There is no merit in the plea of the Institute- D
respondent No.1 that duties, responsibilities and
obligations of the appellants were different from their
counterparts functioning in the Central Secretariate and
that they were justified in not giving the same pay-scale.
The respondent-lnstitute's stand all through was that the E
appellants be given ttie pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900. At this
stage, respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to take a
somersault in this manner. These appellants were getting
the same pay-scale as was given to the employees of their
categories in the Central Government up to 1.1.1986. The F
Union of India accepted the recommendation of the Vth
and Vlth Pay Commissions and are giving them same
pay-scale and their pay- scale could not be different
during the IVth Pay Commission and their duties,
obligations and responsibilities could not be different G
only for a brief period. [Paras 14 and 15) [33-E-H; 34-A-
C]
Civil Appeal No. 209/2007
2. The appellants are entitled to get the benefit of H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010],14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 which their counterparts were
getting in the Central Government ,during the relevant
period. The appellants in the instant appeal were fully
justified in getting the benefit qf the revised pay-scale
from 01.01.1986. The appellants have already received the
B benefit of the revised pay-scale. The respondents cannot
recover the additional atnount paid to the appellants
because. they were fully justified in getting the benefit of
the revised pay- scale. Even otherwise also the addition/31
amount cannot be recovered from them. The amount paid
c to the appellants-employees pursuant to the grant of
higher pay-scale should not be recovered unless it was
a case of mis-representation or fraud. Admittedly, neither
mis-representation nor fraud can be attributed to the
appellants. In this view of the matter, respondent no.1-
D Institute would be restrained from recovering any amount
which has already been paid to the appellants. [Paras 37
and 39] [38-B-C; 40-B-C]
Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.
(1994) 2SCC 521; Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and Ors.
E (1995) Suppl.1 SC 18; State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Pandey
Jagdishwar Prasad (2009)SCC 117 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
(1994) 2 sec 521 Relied on. Para 38
F
(1995) Suppl.1 SCC 18 Relied on. Para 38
(2009) 3 sec 111 Relied on. Para 38
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
288-289 of 2005.
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.5.2002 and
18.12.2003 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No.
301 of 1997 and Review Petition No. 1486 of 2002.
YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS. v. NATIONAL INST. 25
EDU. PLANNING & ADMN.
WITH A
Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2007.
Amrend!~.,Sharan, Ashok K. Mahajan, Amit Pawan,
Sanchit Guru, A.K. Singh, Prakash Kumar (for Amit Kumar) for
the Appellants. B
T.S. Doabia, Amitesh Kumar (for Gopal Singh), R.K.
Rathore, Raj Kumar Tanwar (for Sushma Suri) (for D.S. Mahra)
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. These appeals are directed
against the judgment dated 31.5.2002 passed by a Division
Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A.N0.301
of 1997 etc. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose D
of Civil Appeals Nos.288-2009 of 2005 and Civil Appeal
No.209 of 2007.
2. Brief facts which are relevant to dispose of these
appeals are recapitulated as under:
E
3. The appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.288-289/2005 were
working as Assistants and Stenographers with Respondent
no.1- National Institute of Educational Planning and
Administration, Delhi.
F
3. The appellants in Civil Appeal No.209 of 2007 were
working with the Sahitya Academy, Delhi as Accounts and
Administrative Assistants/Assistants/Stenographers. The
appellants' were getting the pay scale of Rs.425-800 upto
1986. The Assistants in the Central Government were also
getting the same pay scale. According to the IVth Pay G
Commission, the pay scale of Assistants and Stenographers
was revised from Rs.425-800 to Rs.1400-2600 in the Central
Government.
4. The Anomalies Removal Committee gave its H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A recommendation increasing the pay scales from Rs.1400-2600
to Rs.1640-2900. Though the recommendation of the
Anomalies Removal Committee were accepted from
01.01.1986 but the appellants were not given the pay scale of
Rs.1640-2900.
B
5. According to the appellants, they were also entitled to
the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. The Central Government vide
letter dated 5.1.1990 approved the service regulations of the
respondent- Institute. Regulation 4(2) provides as under:
c "4(2) Group 'A' officers, other than faculty members and
those on UGC grades of pay groups 'B', 'C' and 'D'
employees shall draw salary and allowances in such
scales of pay as may be applicable to the corresponding
categories of Central Government employees and be
D subject to such conditions of service as are or may be
applicable to Central Government employees from time to
time."
According to this regulation, the appellants were also entitled
E to the pay scale which was extended to their counterparts in
the Central Government but the appellants were not given the
pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. They were compelled to approach
the High Court for the relief.
6. The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court
F passed the following order in the case of Assistants and
Stenographers of the National Institute of Educational Planning
and Administration:
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G CW No.805/97
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the
record. The grievance of the petitioners are that they are
also in the post of Assistant and Personal Assistants
H (Steno). Similarly situated organizations have been
YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS. v. NATIONAL INST. 27
EDU. PLANNING & ADMN. [DALVEER BHADARI, J.]
granting the revised pay scale for such posts as given by A
the Central Government to its employees whereas the
respondents are not implementing the revised pay scales
on account of the circular issued by the Ministry of Finance
dated 11st December, 1990. This court in CW No.290/95
decided on 29 th November, 1995 as well as in the case B
of P. S. Gopinathan Nair & Ors. Vs. All India Institute of
Medical Sciences. C.W.No.4462/94 decided on 16th
October, 1995, has already given directions to the similarly
situated organizations to grant the pay scale at par with
the employees of the Central Government. Similar c
directions were also given in the case of the Indian Council
of Agricultural Research, Indian Council of Medical
Research and University Grants Commission. The case of
the petitioners is at par with the employees of other
organizations. D
Taking the above factors into conside(ation,
directions are accordingly given to the respondents to give
the pay scales to the petitioners as admissible to the
Central Government employees for the post of Assistant
and Personal Assistant(Stenographers). E
With these observations the petition stands disposed
of.
28.7.1997 Sd/-
F
Usha Mehra
Judge."
7. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was
based on earlier judgments of the High Court passed in Civil G
Writ No.290/95 decided on 29th November, 1995 and in Civil
Writ No.4462/94 decided on 16th October, 1995. Respondent
no.1-lnstitute aggrieved by the said judgment preferred a
Letters Patent Appeal (for short 'L.P .A.') before a Division
Bench of the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the LPA H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A filed by the respondent no.1 was allowed by the Division Bench
along with other appeals. Against the judgment of the Division
Bench, Review Petitions were filed, which were dismissed by
the Division Bench of the High Court.
B 8. The appellants, aggrieved by the judgment of the High
Court, preferred these appeals. It may be pertinent to mention
that the respondent-Institute was pursuing the case of the
appellants with the Central Government for higher pay scale.
The respondent- Institute in fact sent a letter to the Secretary,
C Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of
India, New Delhi on December 19, 1994 praying that the
appellants herein be given the revised pay scales of Rs.1640-
2900. The letter reads as under :
"No.4-29-2/94-Pers.
D
December 19, 1994
The Secretary
Government of India
Ministry of Human Resource Development
E Department of Education
Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi -110 001
Attn:Sh.R.V. Vaidhyananthan Ayyar, Joint Secretary(Plg.)
F Sub: Revision of scale of pay of Assistants/Stenographers.
Sir,
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has
conveyed approval of the Govt. of India of the scale of pay
G
Rs.1640-2900 to Assistants/Sr.Stenographers Grade 'C'
in place of Rs.1400-2600 working in the Indian Council of
Medical research, New DelhL Therefore, representations
from the employees of this Institute have been received to
revise their scale identical to those adopted for
H
YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS. v. NATIONAL INST. 29
EDU. PLANNING & ADMN. [DALVEER BHADARI, J.]
corresponding post at par with the Central Government. A
SR 6(A)(iii) stipulate that the revision of the pay
scale of any post except that of Director subject to the
approval of the Govt. of India and there upon the First
Schedule~·shall stand amended in accordance with such
8
directions. Provided that approval of the Govt. of India
would not be necessary for adoption of pay scale and
allowances identical to those adopted for corresponding
post at par with Central Government/UGC orders issued
from time to time except in case of general revision of C
scales of pay of posts. Since, the pay scales of Assistant
and Senior Stenographer 'C' in the Central Government is
Rs.1640-2600, therefore, in accordance with the service
regulations cited above, the demand of the employees
appear to be genuine. It is, therefore, requested that the
case may kindly be considered at your end in c6nsultation D
with Internal Finance Division and approval be conveyed
so that the matter is placed before the Executive committee
of the Institute....... "
Thereafter another letter on August 1, 1995 was sent to the E
Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India, New Delhi and the Institute again
requested the Central Government to grant pay scale of
Rs.1640-2900 to the appellants. The letter reads as under :
"No.F-29-2/94-Pers. F
August 1, 1995
The Secretary
Govt.of India
Ministry of Human Resource Development G
(Deptt.of Education)
Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi -110 001
Attention: Dr.R.V.Vaidyanathan Ayyar, Joint Secretary
(Planning) H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Subject: Revision of scale of pay of Assistants/Senior
Stenographers from Rs.140--2600 to Rs.1640-2900.
Sir,
Kindly refer to our letter of even number dated 23.3.1995
B and subsequent reminder dated 28.4.1995 on the subject
cited above (copy enclosed). Our Service Regulations,
which had been approved by the Govt. of India, among
other things provide that the scales of pay of the
employees of the NIEPA other than the faculty and those
c on UGC grades of pay shall be at par with those of the
Central Government Employees.
In this regard, it may be mentioned that s0me of the
Autonomous Organizations under Ministry of Human
D Resource Development had allowed the revised scale of
Rs.1640-2900 to Assistants and Senior Stenographers in
their organizations.
It is, therefore, requested that approval of the Govt.
on the revision of scales in respect of the above categories
E of employees of our Institute may kindly be sent to us at
the earliest.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-lllegible 1.8.95
(O.P.Sharma)
F
Acting Registrar"
9. The Director of the respondent Institute again sent a
letter on November 2, 1995 to the Education Secretary, Ministry
of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New
G Delhi in which it is mentioned that the Assistants and Senior
Stenographers of the Institute be given the pay scale of
Rs.1640-2900. The said letter reads as under :
H
YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS. v. NATIONAL INST. 31
EDU. PLANNING & ADMN. [DALVEER BHADARI, J.]
"No.F-29-2/94-Pers. A
Kudleep Mathur
Director November 2, 1995
Dear Shri Das Gupta,
B
Kindly refer to the lnstitute's letter No.F-29-2/94/Pers.
Dated December 19, 1994 and the subsequent letters of
even number dated 23rd March, 1994, 28th April, 1995,
29th May, 1995 and 1st August, 1995 regarding revision
of pay scales of Assistants/ Sr.Stenographers 'C'. In this C
respect it is submitted that the Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare has conveyed the approval of the Govt. of India
for the change of pay scales of Assistants/
Sr.Stenographers 'C' working in the Indian Council of
Medical research, New Delhi to Rs.1640- 2900 in place
of Rs.1400-2600. The JNU and other universities are also D
having the scales of Rs.1640-2900 for these categories
of staff. It is learnt that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan have
also change the pay scales from Rs.1400-2600 to
Rs.1640-2900 recently.
E
The employees of this Institute have persistently been
demanding that their pay scales may also be changed from
Rs.1400--2600 to Rs.1640-2900. The Institute have only
7 posts of Assistants and 10 posts of Sr.Stenographers
'C' in position. The revision of pay scales and placement F
of these employees in this scale I.e. 1640-2900 will have
minor financial implications and the same would be met
out of the regular budget of NIEPA.
The Service Regulation 6A(C) of NIEPA provide that
the revision of pay scales of any posts except that of G
Director subject to the approval of the Government and
thereupon the First Schedule shall stand amended in
accordance with such directions. Provided that the
H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A approval of the Govt. of India would not be necessary for
adoption of pay scales and allowances identical to those
adopted for corresponding post as per the Central
GovernmenUUGC orders issued from time to time except
in cases of general revision of pay scales of posts. Since
B the pay scales of Assistants/Sr.Stenographers 'C' in the
Central Government is Rs.1640-2900, therefore, in
accordance with the Service Regulations cited above, the
demand of the employees appears to be genuine.
I shall be grateful if the pay scale of Assistants/
c Sr.Stenographer 'C" of the Institute is also changed from
Rs.1400-2600 to Rs.1640-2900 and approval of the
Ministry may please be conveyed so that the matter is
placed before Executive Committee for obtaining ex-post-
facto approval. Necessary guidelines for effecting changes
D according for the posts of Sr.P.A.(presently 1640-2900)
and P.S. To (sic) may also kindly be given.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
E (Kuldeep Mathur)
Shri P.R.Das Gupta
Education Secretary
Ministry of Human Resource Development
New Delhi."
F 10. It may be pertinent to mention that all these
communications were sent by respondent no.1 on the strength
of the regulations of respondent no.1 which was approved by
the Central Government. The said regulation has already been
set out in the preceding paragraphs.
G 11. The Vth Pay Commission has granted the pay scale
of Rs.1640-2900, now revised as Rs.5500-9000 to the
appellants and their counterparts working in the Central
Government. We have been informed that even the Vlth Pay
Commission has further revised it to Rs.9300-15600 and
H
YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS. v. NATIONAL INST. 33
EDU. PLANNING & ADMN. [DALVEER BHADARI, J.]
presently the appellants and their counterparts in the Central A
Government are in that pay scale.
12. The short question which arises for consideration in
these appeals is why the appellants should not be given the pay
scale of Rs.1640-2900 from the date when their counterparts B
have been given that pay scale in the Central Government?
Although the stand of the Institute has also been that the
appellants are entitled for the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 which
is quite evident from the afore-mentioned letters sent by the
respondent institute to the Central Government. The Union of C
India has now in the Vth and Vlth Pay Commissions has given
that scale to the appellants.
13. In our considered view, the Division Bench was not
justified in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single
Judge. It may be pertinent to mention that the Division Bench D
did not consider the service regulations of the National Institute
of Educational Planning and Administration. The case of the
appellant no.1 herein was not even discussed or considered
in the impugned judgment.
E
14. Mr.Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
Institute-respondent no.1 tried to make out the case that duties,
responsibilities and obligations of the appellants were different
to their counterparts functioning in the Central Secretariat and
they were justified in not giving the same pay scale. But we do
F
not find any merit in the submission because the respondent
lnstitute's stand all through was that the appellants be given the
pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. At this stage, respondent no.1
cannot be permitted to take a somersault in this manner. The
Union of India accepted the recommendations of the Vth and
Vlth Pay Commissions and are giving the appellants the same G
pay scale which their counterparts in the Central Government
are getting. It may be pertinent to observe that these appellants
were getting the same pay scale as was given to the
employees of their categories in the Central Government up to
1.1.1986. The Union of India accepted the recommendation of H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A the Vth and Vlth Pay Commissions and are giving them same
pay scale then how only during the IV Pay Commission their
pay scale could be different? and how their duties, obligations
and responsibilities became different only for a brief period?
8 15. In our considered view, the appellants are entitled to
get the benefit of pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 which their
counterparts were getting in the Central Government during the
relevant period. In case this amount has not been paid, the
same may be paid to the appellants by the Institute within three
C months from today.
Civil Appeal No.209 of 2007:
16. The relevant facts of the case are briefly narrated
below:
D
The Sahitya Academy was established in the year 1952.
Later on, it was registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. According to the Constitution of the Academy, its
General Council is the highest authority, having the powers to
inter alia, approved the budget c;nd frame its own rules,
E regulations, bye-laws and rules of procedure and the
Government of India does not have any role in the same. The
Sahitya Academy (Service) bye-laws came into force on
4.3.1961. The rules of the Government of India with regard to
recruitment, service conditions etc. of employees are fully
F applicable to the Academy. A bare perusal of the bye-laws
would make it amply evident that so far the allowances, salaries
etc. of the employees are concerned, they are absolutely at par
with those of the employees of the Government of India. The
employees in the cadre of Assistants/Stenographers in the
G Academy have been drawing the same pay scale as that
drawn by the Assistant Grade of the Central Secretariat
Services and Grade 'C' Stenographers of Central Secretariat
Stenographers Service. This scale of pay was Rs.1400- 2600
after the recommendations of the IVth Central Pay Commission
H (pre-revised scale of Rs.425-800).
YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS. v. NATIONAL INST. 35
EDU. PLANNING & ADMN. [DALVEER BHADARI, J.]
17. A High Powered pay committee was constituted A
pursuant to the directions of the Court and its recommendations
were incorporated in a government notification dated
12.06.1990. Clause 11 of the said notification stipulated 'The
employees in respect of whom the recommendations of the
High Power Pay Committee are not being implemented under B
the orders of this Court dated 3.5.1990 would get pay revision
only as and when similar changes are being affected for the
central government employees."
18. The Government of India on 31.07.1990 granted the
revised scale of Rs.1640-2900 to the posts included in the C
Assistant Grade of the Central Secretariat Services and Grade
'C' Stenographers of Central Secretariat Stenographers
Service, with effect from 1.1.1986. It was made clear in the
order that the same revised pay scale would also be applicable
to the Assistants and Stenographers in other organizations, D
where the posts are in comparable grade with same
qualification and pay scale.
19. The appellants, who are working as Assistants/
Stenographers/other designations in the same cadre, started E
representing before the concerned authorities for grant of the
revised scale of Rs.1640-2900 to them.
20. The Government of India issued another order on
11.12.1990 which it directed that revised scale of Rs.1640-
2900 granted to the Assistants/Stenographers of the Central F
Secretariat Services would not be applicable to the Assistants/
Stenographers of autonomous organizations.
21. In response to an unstarred question in the Rajya
Sabha on 18.1.1991 regarding revision of pay scales of G
Assistants/ Stenographers of autonomous organizations and
statutory bodies, the then Minister replied that these bodies can
decide on their own, whether or not to implement the revised
scale of pay.
H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 22. The Central Administrative Tribunal on 21.12.1993
directed the Government of India to revise the pay scale of
Stenographers and Assistants to the same level as that of the
Assistants/Stenographers of the Central Secretariat Services.
23. The Indian Council of Medical Research issued letter
8
on 18.4.1994 extending the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to the
Assistants/ Stenographers.
24. The Government of India issued another letter on
6.1.1995 stating that the revised scale of Rs.1640-2900
C granted to the Assistants/Stenographers of the Central
Secretariat Services would not be applicable to the Assistants/
Stenographers of autonomous organizations.
25. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research issued an
0 order on 7.6.1995 conveying the sanction by the competent
authority of the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to its Assistants/
Stenographers.
26. The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research issued
an order on 9.6.1995 conveying the sanction by the competent
E authority of the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to its Assistants/
Stenographers.
27. The Delhi High Court passed orders directing payment
of revised scale of Rs.1640-2900 to Assistants/Stenographers
F working in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.
28. The Finance Ministry, Government of India, issued a
letter on 20.6.1996 conveying the grant of revised scale of
Rs.1640-2900 to Assistants/Stenographers working in the
National Institute of Health and Family Welfare.
G
29. The Ministry of Urban Development, Government of
lndia, issued an order on 7.10.1996 conveying the grant of
revised scale of Rs.1640-2900 to Assistants/Stenographers
working in the Delhi Development Authority.
H
YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS. v. NATIONAL INST. 37
EDU. PLANNING & ADMN. [DALVEER BHADARI, J.]
30. The appellants on 14.2.1997 sent one of the several A
representations seeking revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900.
However, the appellants did not receive any favourable
communication.
31. The appellants filed a Civil Writ Petition No.559 of B
1998 before the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the
Government of India order dated 11.12.1990, letter dated
6.1.1995 and for a further direction that the revised pay scale
of Rs.1640-2900 be granted to them.
32. The aforesaid writ petition filed by the appellants was C
allowed by a single Judge of the Delhi High Court with a
direction that the appellants be paid the revised pay scale of
Rs.1640-2900, with effect from 1.1.1986. The respondent
Institute gave the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to the appellants.
D
33. The Union of India preferred a Letters Patent Appeal
(for short 'L.P .A.') bearing LPA No.92 of 1999, against the
aforesaid ·order dated 16.10.1998.
34. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court heard the
aforesaid LPA as well as the other connected appeals and writ E
petitions filed by the Union of India. By an order dated
31.5.2002 LPA No.92/1999 was allowed as also the other
appeals and writ petitions filed by the Union of India and thereby
held that the revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 was not
payable to the Assistants/Stenographers working in F
autonomous organizations/statutory bodies like the Sahitya
Academy.
35. The Delhi High Court, in the impugned judgment, took
into consideration the facts of the case relating to ESI G
corporation only and as such the individual facts relating to
different organizations, including the Sahitya Academy, were
not considered at all.
36. The appellants filed a review application before the
Delhi High Court being Review Petition No.2000 of 2002. The H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Respondent- Union of India filed a counter affidavit in the
aforesaid Review Petition No.2000/2002. The appellants then
filed a rejoinder affidavit in the aforesaid Review Petition
No.2000/2002. The Review Petition was also dismissed. The
appellants have now approached this Court.
B
37. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In
view of our judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.288-289 of 2005, the
appellants in this appeal were fully justified in getting the benefit
of the revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 from 01.01.1986. In·
the instant case the appellants have already received the
c benefit of the revised pay scale. The question which arose for
consideration was whether the respondents can recover the
additional amount paid to the appellants. In our considered
view, the appelants in this appeal were fully justified in getting
the benefit of the revised pay scale. Even otherwise also the
D additional amount cannot be recovered from them.
38. Mr.Amarendra Sharan, l~arned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants in this appeal, submitted that the
benefit of higher pay scale granted to appellants cannot be
E recovered in view of the series of the judgments of this Court.
He placed reliance on a three judge Bench judgment of this
Court in Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.,
(1994) 2 sec p.521 para 11, which reads as under :
"Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled
F only to the pay scale of Rs.330-480 in terms of the
recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f.
January 1, 1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they
became entitled to the pay scale of Rs.330-560 but as they
have received the scale of Rs.330-560 since 1973 due'io
G no fault of theirs and that scale is being reduced in the year
1984 with effect from January 1, 1973, it shall only be just
and _proper not to recover any excess amount which has
already been paid to them. Accordingly, we direct that no
steps should be taken to recover or to do adjust any
H excess amount paid to the petitioners due to the fault of
YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS. v. NATIONAL INST. 39
EDU. PLANNING & ADMN. [DALVEER BHADARI, J.]
the respondents, the petitioners being in no way A
responsible for the same."
This judgment has been followed in the subsequent judgment
of this Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1995)
Suppl.1 sec p.18 para 5, which reads as under :
B
"Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required
educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the
appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The
Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the
date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary C
on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any
misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit
of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong
construction made by the Principal for which the appellant
cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the D
amount paid till date may not be recovered from the
appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would
not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants
Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any
order as to costs." E
Mr.Sharan also cited another relatively recent judgment of this
Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Pandey
Jagdishwar Prasad, (2009) 3 SCC p.117 para 19 which reads
as under:
F
"It is not needed for this Court to verify the veracity of the
statements made by the parties. If at all the respondent
entered the second date of birth at a subsequent period
of time, the authorities concerned should have detected it
and there should have been a detailed enquiry to determine G
whether the respondent was responsible for the same. It
has been held in a catena of judiGial pronouncements that
even if by mistake, higher pay scale was given to the
employee, without there being misrepresentation or fraud,
H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A no recovery can be effected from the retiral dues in the
monetary benefit available to the employee."
39. In view of a series of judgments of this Court, the
appellants are otherwise entitled to the revised pay scale. the
8 amount paid to the appellants-employees pursuant to the grant
of higher pay scale should not be recovered unless it was a
case of mis-representation or fraud. Admittedly, neither mis-
representation nor fraud can be attributed to the appellants in
C.A.N0.209/2007. In this view of the matter, respondent no.1-
C Institute would be restrained from recovering any amount which
has already been paid to the appellants in C.A.N0.209/2007.
40. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and
Civil Appeals Nos.288-289 of 2005 and Civil Appeal No.209
of 2007 are allowed and disposed of. However, the benefit of
D this order would be confined to the appellants in Civil Appeals
Nos.288- 289 of 2005 and Civil Appeal No.209 of 2007.
41. In the facts and circumstances of these cases, we
direct the parties to bear their own costs.
E K.K.T. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "pay parity"Sign in to search