STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus M.P. MOHLA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 926 · Decided: 10-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
v. 
M.P. MOHLA 
NOVEMBER 10, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder XLV/l-Review Petition-
Maintainability of-Claim for higher promotional revised pay scale by 
C employee-Denied by State-Writ Petition-Jn counter affidavit admission by 
State th(Jt f1Xation of the pay-scale of employee governed by Revised Pay 
Rules-Claim permitted by High Court-SLP against order of High Court, 
raising question of applicability of ACP Rules and non-applicability of Revised 
Pay Rules, dismissed by Supreme Court-Review Petitio.n for review of order 
of High Court seeking clarification regarding applicability of the Rules-
D Dismissed-On appeal, held: Review Petition was not maintainable-It was 
not open to the State to ask for a clarification contrOIJ' to or inconsistent ·with 
its stand taken in the Writ Petition-The question as regards applicability of 
one or the other Rules could not have been decided in the Review Petition-
Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998-Haryana Civil Services 
E (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998. 
Respondent was appointed as Veterinary Surgeon in 1965. In 1980 
he was promoted as Assistant Director with effect from 1.4.1992, he was 
drawing Selection Grade Scale of Rs. 4100-5300. On 9.4.1996 he was 
promQted to the post of Deputy Director. In 1998 Haryana Civil Services 
F (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 and Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career 
Progression) Rules, 1998 (ACP Rules) came into force. In terms of the ACP 
Rules the scale of Rs. 4100-5300 was revised to Rs. 12000-16500 w.e.f. 
1.1.96. Respondent was also given a certificate of higher responsibility. His 
pay was fixed in the scale of Rs. 13500--17250. He claimed fixation of his 
pay in the higher promotional revised pay scale of Rs. 14300-18300. The 
G claim was rejected. Hence he filed Writ Petition on the ground that 
consequent to his promotion on the next higher post of Deputy -Director, 
he was entitled to next higher revised pay scale of Rs. 14300-18300. The 
Writ Petition was allowed by High Court. Special Leave Petition against 
the order of High Court was dismissed by Supreme Court, wherein the 
H 
926 
STATE OF HARYANA v. M.P. MOHLA 
927 
State had raised the question of anomaly in the applicability of the Revised A 
Pay Rules and ACP Rules, stating that respo:ident was not entitled to be 
fixed in the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 4100-5300 under Revised Pay 
Rules. This statement was contrary to his statement in the counter-affidavit 
in the Writ Petition admitting that the respondent was governed by the 
Revised Pay Rules. Despite dismissal of the SLP, State filed Review Petition 
before High Court seeking clarifications in respect of applicability of the B 
Rules. Respondent contended therein that ACP Rules were not applicable 
as he had already been promoted twice prior to coming into force thereof. 
The Review Petition was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.L A review petition filed by appellants herein was not 
maintainable. There was no error apparent on the face of the record. The 
effect of a judgment may have to be considered afresh in a separate 
proceeding having regard to the subsequent cause of action which might 
have arisen but the same by itself may not be a ground for filing an D 
application for review. (936-C-D) 
1.2. The application for review in effect and substance was not an 
application for clarification of the judgment of the High Court. An 
application for clarification cannot be taken recourse to; to achieve the E 
result of a review application. What cannot be done directly, cannot be 
done indirectly. [936-D-E) 
Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors., (2004) 12 SCC 713, 
referred to. 
F 
1.3. A judgment must be read in its entirety. The judgment of a c9urt 
must also be implemented. But what would be the effect of a judgment 
must be considered from the reliefs claimed in the writ petition as also 
the implications thereof which has to be deciphered from reading the entire 
judgment. A judgment may also have to be read on the touchstone of 
pleadings of the parties. [934-E-F) 
G 
State of Karnataka and Ors. v. C. Lalitha, (2006[ 2 SCC 747, relied 
on. 
1.4. It may not also be open to a party to the lis to ask for a H 
928 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A clarification contrary to or inconsistent with its stand taken by it in the 
writ proceeding
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.