LexE.S. RAJARAM AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
E.S. RAJARAM AND ORS. A 1' ·-r v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. JANUARY IO, 2001 [G.B. PATTANAIK, S. RAJENDRA BABU, D.P. MOHAPTRA, B DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVRARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] ~~ Service law: Memorandu111 issued for recruitment of Traffic Apprenlices on higher c pay scale after a cul-off date-Pre-memorandum Apprenlices gelling lesser pay scale challenging he memorandum-Effect of com111on order of Supreme Courl on contesting and non-con/esting Pre-111emorandum Apprentices- Held, such order can be passed to ensure co111plete justice--Constilution of lndia-Arlicle 142. D Railway Board by a memorandum dated 15-5-1987 brought some change in the recruitment of Traffic Apprentices. One of the chances is that from 15-5-1987, the recruitment of the Apprentices would be made in the pay scale " ... of Rs. 1600-2660. The old pay scale for the existing Apprer.tices was Rs . 1400-2300. The pre-1987 Apprentices across the country challenged the E memorandum in various Central Administrative Tribunals and claimed higher pay scale on the basis of the memorandum. There had been connicting views of the Tribunals which came to be decided by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. M. Bhaskar & Ors .. 1199614 SCC 416, upholding the validity of the memorandum. The Court further gave two directions - (1) that the Union of 'li. India Should not recover the excess amount paid to the Apprentices which F were paid on the basis of the judgments of the Tribunals and (2) that the order shall apply to the Apprentices who were before this Court and to those Apprentices in whose favour judgment had been delivered by any Tribunal and which had become final either because no appeal was carried to this Court or if carried the same was dismissed. Appellants are those Apprentices who G -~ are affected by the second direction. In pursuance to the directions of the Court, the departmental authorities gave appropriate placements to the appellants in the pay scale of Rs. 1400- 2300 and not Rs. 1600-2600. The appellants filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal with observation that it would be appropriate H 203 204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] I S.C.R. A for the appellants to approach the Court for any clarfication or review of the judgment in M Bhaskar 's case. The appellants contended that the observations and directions given by the Court in M Bhaskar 's case are unsustainable since they were passed without giving any notice to the appellants and/or other similarly placed B employees who were seriously prejudiced by such directions; that the appellants who had been given fitment if the higher scale of pay and promotions should not be subjected to the directions. The respondents contended that the Court rightly issued the directions for bringing about uniformity and do complete justice between all the pre- C 1987 Apprentices. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1.1. The decision in M Bhaskar's case had been taken on detailed analysis of thee relevant provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Code D and the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and in the light of certain general principles of law relating to recruitment cogent reasons have been given in support of the finding and conclusions arrived at in the judgment. There is no contention advanced by the appellants pointing out any serious error in the decision on merits. The Court is satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision is correct and warrants no interference. E (210-C-DI F 1.2. Article 142 of the Constitution vests power in the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it. The provisions contains no limitation regarding the causes or the circumstances in which the power can be exercised nor does it lays down any conditions to be satisfied before such power is exercised. The exercise of the power is left completely to the discretion of the highest Court of the country and its order or decree is made binding on all the Courts or Tribunals throughout the territory of India. However, this power is not to be exercised to override any express provision. It is not to be G exercised in a case where there is no basis in law which can form an edifice for building up a super structure. (210-E-F-Gl 1.3. The controversy relating to the scale of pay admissible for Traffic Apprentices
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.