LexDR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 888 : 2023 INSC 1048 888 CASE DETAILS DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.7747 of 2012) NOVEMBER 30, 2023 [HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the legality of the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the prayer made by the appellants- Assistant Scientifi c Offi cer for grant of the same pay-scale and perquisites as had been granted to the respondent No.4-Assistant Scientifi c Offi cer (Medicine). Service Law – Pay scale – Single post of same cadre – One offi cer given higher pay scale than the other – Correctness: Held: If governed by the same set of Rules, a single post of the same cadre could not have been isolated and granted a higher pay scale by merely considering the qualifi cations prescribed for the post – On facts, representations made by the appellants-Assistant Scientifi c Offi cer claiming that the respondent No. 4-Assistant Scientifi c Offi cer (Medicine) having been granted a higher pay scale along with Non Practicing Allowance-NPA, though not practising as a doctor, they were also entitled to the same as they were appointed on the same post, governed by the same Rules and were discharging the same duties – There is no justifi cation to grant same scale- higher pay scale to the appellants as was generously and wrongly granted to the respondent No. 4 alongwith the NPA by treating him equal to the Medical Offi cer working in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare – Authorities were hand in gloves with the respondent No. 4 to somehow grant him a higher pay scale and repeatedly action was taken in that direction – Favouritism shown to the respondent No. 4 is evident from the facts – There was no justifi cation for grant of higher pay scale to the respondent No. 4 with eff ect from the date of his initial appointment – Same was illegal and 889 cannot withstand in judicial scrutiny – Furthermore, without there being any amendment in the Rules, the post of Assistant Scientifi c Offi cer (Medicine) was declared ex-cadre and the NPA granted to the respondent No. 4, though he was not practising as a doctor, was withdrawn – Thus, the order justifying the benefi ts granted to respondent No. 4 set aside – Appellants not entitled to higher pay scales as were granted to respondent No. 4 – Assistant Scientifi c Offi cer (Medicine) Rules, 2014 – Senior Scientifi c Offi cer (Medicine) Rules, 2014 – Central Hindi Directorate (Research Assistant) Recruitment Rules, 1980. [Para 42, 53-59]. Service law – Grant of undue benefi ts to the employee-Assistant Scientifi c Offi cer (Medicine) – Correctness: Held: Respondent No. 4-Assistant Scientifi c Offi cer (Medicine) was unjustifi ably paid salary in the higher pay scale - One option could be that whatever had been paid to him till date, be left as such and his pay could be directed to be re-fi xed from a future date, however, having regard to the level of the post and the manner in which he was extended special treatment at every step and was granted higher pay scale, said course is not adopted as this is not a case of any bonafi de error – It was a well-planned and deliberate infraction – Thus, issuance of direction for recovery of the excess amount paid to the respondent No. 4, and/or from the offi cer(s), directly involved in the decision-making process of granting undue benefi t to the respondent No.4 – Both to be made equally liable to reimburse the exchequer for the amount illegally disbursed to the respondent No.4 – Exchequer should not be made to suff er on that account and either of two have to make good that loss of undue benefi t granted to the respondent No. 4. [Para 60] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES D.S. Parvathamma v. A. Srinivasan (2003) 4 SCC 705 : [2003] 3 SCR 197; A.K. Dass v. National Federation of Cooperative Sugar Factories Ltd. and others (1994) 2 SCC 520; Union of India and others v. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421 : [2020] 7 SCR 851; Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another v. Bal Krishan Sharma and others (2022) 1 SCC 322; Ajit Kumar Bhuyan and others v. Debajit Das and others (2019) 12 SCC 275 : [2018] 13 SCR 1012 – referred to. DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7747 of 2012. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2011 of the Hi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.