NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY versus U. DINAKAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2014] 6 S.C.R. 960 · Decided: 30-06-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 960 
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 
v. 
U. DINAKAR AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.5854 of 2014) 
JUNE 30, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Service Law: Revision of pay scale - Respondent no. 1 
C appointed as Deputy Registrar of appellant college - Opted 
for central pay scale - Application for appointment for the post 
of Registrar by direct recruitment on the pay scale of Rs.-
2375-4450 - Respondent no. 1 selected and issued 
appointment letter prescribing pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 -
D On discovery of mistake, inquiry conducted and show cause 
notice issued to respondent no. 1 seeking an explanation as 
io why pay scale shown in appointment letter be not rectified 
- After consideration of reply, order of rectification passed -
Claim of respondent no. 1 for pay scale which he was drawing 
E under appointment order - High Court allowed writ petition on 
the ground that inquiry was tainted by bias - Held: Admittedly, 
the appointment order was issued pursuant to the notification 
of direct recruitment, therefore, respondent no. 1 cannot claim 
that he was promoted to the post of Registrar - Mistake was 
F committed by clerical staff in mentioning the words 'promoted 
and appointed' in place of 'appointed' and showing higher 
scale of pay of Rs.3000-4500 - It was always open to the 
competent authority to correct the mistake - However, before 
such correction, it is incumbent on the part of the authority to 
inform the officer concerned that there is a mistake in his order 
G of appointment and competent authority intends to correct the 
same so as to enable the officer to submit an effective reply 
and show that it was not a mistake but the order was genuine 
and in accordance with law - In the instant case, the authority 
H 
960 
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. U. 
961 
DINAKAR 
had given notice to respondent no. 1 and brought to his notice 
A 
that there was a genuine mistake in his letter of appointment 
and he was wrongly given a higher pay of scale of Rs.3000-
4500 - Appellant had committed no error in correcting the 
letter of appointment by replacing the correct scale of pay to 
which respondent no.1 was entitled i.e. Rs.2375-4450,as 
B 
provided in the advertisement/notification - Natural justice. 
Bias - Plea of - Held: The bias or malafide plea is 
generally raised by an interested party, the Court canpot draw 
any conclusion unless allegations are substantiated beyond C 
doubt - The appellant-Institute when discovered that 
respondent no. 1 was drawing salary in a higher scale of pay 
than the scale of pay to which he was entitled constituted a 
five-members Enquiry Committee to look into the matter 
headed by respondent no.2 - So far as the allegation of 
malafide against respondent no.2 was concerned, though he 
D 
was impleaded as a party, no specific allegation was made 
to substantiate such allegation - No allf!gation was made 
against rest of the four Members of the Committee - Even the 
other members were not impleaded as a party - In this 
background, it was not open for the High Court to give finding 
E 
of bias against one or other member of the Committee, who 
decided the issue pursuant to which the notice was issued to 
respondent no. 1 - The High Court while wrongly held that the 
enquiry was tainted with bias, erred in holding that respondent 
no. 1 was entitled to the Central scale of pay. 
F 
Respondent No.1 was selected and appointed as 
Deputy Registrar of the appellant-college in March, 1979. 
While he was so performing the duty, the Department of 
Education, issued a communication dated 5th February, 
G 
1988 to the Principals of the Regional Engineering 
Colleges revising the scales of pay attached to the Senior 
Administrative posts carrying the Central scales of pay 
on the basis of the recommendations of the Fourth 
H 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 
A Central Pay Commission which was accepted by the 
Board of Governors of the appellant-Institute for the 
Senior Administrative posts. 
On 19th April, 1988, the Department of Education 
8 issued another order to the effect that the non-academic 
post of Registrar, Librarian and Foremen in the Regional 
Engineering Colleges be given State pay scales 
comparable to pay scales in similar other institutions in 
the State. It was decided that an option may be sought 
C from the present incumbents whether they would like to 
opt for the Central scales of pay or State scales o

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