The Supreme Court recently has taken a strong stance on the equitable application of pay scales within a specific cadre. The bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal, underscored the principle that uniform rules governing pay scales for a particular position should not be selectively altered based on individual qualifications. The ruling suggests a potential collaboration between authorities and a specific individual, referred to as respondent No. 4, leading to an unjustifiably higher pay scale.
The legal dispute at hand centers around an appeal challenging the decision of the High Court, which upheld the ruling of the Tribunal. The appellant, initially hired as a Research Assistant in 1990 and subsequently promoted to Scientific Officer in 1997, contends that respondent No. 4, who joined as a Research Assistant (Medicine) in 1999, received preferential treatment.
The controversy arose when respondent No. 4, after leaving the Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology in 2005, experienced an upgrade in his pay scale by 2006. The Directorate, considering his position equivalent to that of a doctor, conferred a higher pay scale and Non-Practising Allowance. This decision prompted concerns about its legality, leading to the official designation of the post as an ex-cadre post in 2007.
Despite efforts by the appellants to secure similar benefits, their requests were consistently rejected. The Tribunal dismissed their applications in 2010, and subsequent attempts for a review proved unsuccessful at both the Tribunal and the High Court.
The Supreme Court's scrutiny revealed that respondent No. 4 willingly accepted his appointment under the 1980 Rules and did not contest the rules under which he was recruited. The court concluded that the appellants were not entitled to the same pay scale mistakenly granted to respondent No. 4.
Citing the unlawfulness of the higher pay scale awarded to respondent No. 4, the Supreme Court nullified the decisions of both the Tribunal and the High Court. The court ordered the direct retrieval of the excess amount disbursed to respondent No. 4, emphasizing that this was not an unintentional error but a deliberate violation. The repayment, even if done in installments, was mandated, and the court held both parties equally accountable for reimbursing the exchequer for the unjustified benefits.
In a firm directive, the court asserted that the exchequer should not bear the burden of the undue benefit, and both parties involved should rectify the loss by repaying the amount to respondent No. 4. This landmark ruling sets a precedent for equitable application of pay scales and underscores the accountability of parties involved in such decisions.
Case: Dr PN Shukla and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors,
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy