G.L. BATRA versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 431 · Decided: 07-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 10 S.C.R. 431 
G.L. BATRA 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 9015 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 07, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.J 
A 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 316 and 14 -
Appointment as Chairman of State Public Service 
Commission - Of the Government servant who was drawing 
C 
wages at a higher level than the wages fixed under 
Regulations governing service conditions of the Public 
Service Commission - Remuneration of the Chairman refixed 
in view of his last pay drawn in government service by relaxing 
the relevant rule - Subsequently the benefit withdrawn by State 
D 
Government - Propriety of - Held: The benefit granted to the 
Constitutional appointee by relaxing the regulation, could not 
have been withdrawn by State Government - Especially when 
master and servant relationship not established between the 
Constitution~/ appointee and the State Government -
E 
Withdrawal of the benefit was discriminatory and violative of 
Article 14 - Haryana Public Service Commission (Conditions 
of Service) Regulations, 1972 - Regulation 6. 
Judicial Propriety - Judgment by Co-ordinate Bench - By 
over-ruling the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench - Held: 
F 
Not proper - Appropriate course in such case is to refer the 
matter to larger Bench. 
Appellant, while posted as Additional Secretary,· Lok 
Sabha was drawing a salary of Rs.75001- per month. He 
G 
was appointed as Chairman of Haryana Public Service 
Commission in exercise of powers ulArt. 316(1A) of the 
Constitution. The conditions of service of the 
Commission are governed by Haryana Public Service 
431 
H 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1972. 
The existing pay of the Chairman of Haryana Public 
Service Commission was Rs.7000/- per month. The 
Government re-fixed the recomuneration of the appellant 
as Chairman, as Rs.7500/- p.m. by relaxing the provisions 
s contained in Regulation 6, as a personal measure to him. 
Thereafter, the Government withdrew the benefit and re-
fixed his remuneration as Rs.4135/- p.m .. Writ petition, 
challenging the action of the Government, was dismissed 
by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present 
c appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Government, after having recognized 
the status of the appellant as a constitutional appointee, 
D and relaxing Regulation 6 of 1972 Regulations so far as 
the appellant was concerned, vide its order dated 
18.03.1996, has no power to withdraw the same, 
especially when no master and servant relationship has 
been established between a constitutional appointee and 
E the State Government. Though the appellant's conditions 
of service were governed by the 1972 Regulations, but 
when the Government themselves had relaxed the same, 
especially Regulation 6, as a personal measure to him, 
then they could not withdraw that benefit to his 
F disadvantage which is clearly discriminatory and violative 
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The appellant, 
therefore, would be entitled to all consequential benefits. 
State of Haryana is also directed to pay an award of 
Rs.50,000/- to the appellant by way of cost. [Paras 10 and 
G 17] [438-H; 439-A-B; 442-C] 
2.1. The High Court has committed a serious error in 
ignoring the judgment of the High Court in Ram Phal 
Singh's case i.e. the case relating to the Member of the 
Haryana Public Service Commission, who was appointed 
H as a Member along with the appellant by the Haryana 
G.L. BATRA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 
433 
Government. Single Judge in that case held that first 
A 
proviso under Regulation 6(2) of the 1972 Regulations 
which restricts the remuneration payable to a Member of 
the Public Service Commission (who was drawing wages 
under the Government at a level higher than the 
remuneration fixed under Regulation 6(1) of 1972 
B 
Regulations), the last pay drawn by him under the 
Government at the time of his appointment as a member 
of the Public Service Commission, is violative of the 
proviso under Clause (b) of Article 318 of the Constitution 
of India. The order of single Judge was upheld by a c 
Division Bench of the High Court. [Paras 11 and 12] [439-
C-F] 
2.2. The Division Bench of the High Court, in the 
instant case, over-ruled the judgment in Ram Phal 
Singh's case which was also affirmed by another D 
Division Bench. A co-ordinate Bench of the High Court 
could not have over-ruled a judgment 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.