LexG H P. SINGARAVELAN & ORS. ETC. ETC versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPPUR AND DT & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R. P. SINGARAVELAN & ORS. ETC. ETC. v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPPUR AND DT & ORS. ETC. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 9533-9537 of 2019) DECEMBER 18, 2019 [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND KRISHNA MURARI. JJ.] Service Law: Pay-scales – Claim of – Selection Grade and Special Grade of pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively in terms of GOMs 162 – Grant of said pay scales to around 3000 drivers by various decisions rendered by the High Court and this Court – Appellants-drivers in various departments of Government of Tamil Nadu, claiming parity – High Court rejected the claim of the appellants – On appeal, held: Person cannot invoke Art. 14 to claim a benefit extended to someone similarly placed if he is not lawfully entitled to such benefit in the first place – Art. 14 embodies the concept of positive equality alone, and not negative equality – On facts, apart from claiming parity with similarly placed individuals, the appellants unable to justify their entitlement to the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 – However, on perusing the series of revisions made to the pay scales applicable to drivers employed with the State Government, the applicable pay scales for the Selection Grade and Special Grade would be Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively – Thus, appellants not lawfully entitled to the claim Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively, solely on the strength of earlier decisions of the High Court – Interference with the order of the High Court not called for – Constitution of India – Art. 14. Constitution of India: Art. 14 – Equality – Relief on the strength of Art. 14 – Claim of – Held: A person cannot invoke Art. 14 to claim a benefit extended to someone similarly placed if he is not lawfully entitled to such benefit in the first place – Article 14 embodies the concept of positive equality alone, and not negative [2019] 15 S.C.R. 408 408 A B C D E F G H 409 equality – Art. 14 cannot be relied upon to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity – Thus, the jurisdiction of a higher court cannot be invoked on the basis of a wrong order passed by a lower forum. Judgments/orders: Non-speaking order – Effect of – Held: All the orders passed by this Court were non-speaking orders, inasmuch as they were confined to a mere refusal to grant special leave to appeal to the petitioners therein – Dismissal of an SLP against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of the same – If such an order of this Court is non-speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law u/Art. 141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger. Judicial Discipline: Adjudication of proceedings by the High Court – Parameters to be followed – High Court differed from the view taken previously by a coordinate Bench based on a misreading of the same – Held: In such a situation the High Court should not have proceeded to decide the matter by itself – In the interest of judicial discipline, the High Court should instead have referred the matter to larger Bench for its consideration – Reference to larger Bench. Partly allowing Civil Appeals @ SLPs [Diary No. 42301/ 2017] and dismissing all the other appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is evident that all the orders passed by this Court were non-speaking orders, inasmuch as they were confined to a mere refusal to grant special leave to appeal to the petitioners therein. It is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLP against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of the same. If such an order of this Court is non- speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger. [Para 7] [415-H; 416-A-B] 1.2 The Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 and the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 both set aside the order dated 01.10.2007 based on the fact that the claimed higher pay scales had already been granted and were still being received by certain other drivers in several government P. SINGARAVELAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPPUR AND DT A B C D E F G H 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R. departments, as per G.O. Ms. No. 162. Further, and more importantly, it was held that the letter dated 31.12.1998 wherein such higher pay scale fixations were deemed to be erroneous, would not have the effect of reducing the entitleme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.