STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus R.D. SHARMA AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 27-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
707
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
R.D. SHARMA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 474-475 of 2022)
JANUARY 27, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Service Law – Constitution of India – Article 227 – Indian
Forests Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008 –Amended
Rules provided for upgradation of one existing post of Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) as the Head of Forest Force in
the apex scale – Respondent no.1 who retired as PCCF sought
revision of his pension as per said Rules – Rejected – Filed
application before Tribunal, dismissed – Writ petition allowed by
High Court – Said order was challenged by appellant before
Supreme Court, SLP was disposed of granting liberty to approach
the High Court – Accordingly, appellant filed review petition,
dismissed – Present appeals challenge the said order and the order
passed by High Court allowing the writ petition, held: While
disposing of the SLP, the appellant was granted liberty to approach
the High Court, also the SLP was disposed of without expressing
any opinion on merits – All the issues were kept open for being
considered by High Court in the Review Petition, and the appellant
was permitted to approach this court, if aggrieved by the order
passed therein as well as in the Writ Petition – Present appeals
maintainable – On merits, since the respondent no.1 had retired as
the PCCF in the year 2001, much prior to the coming into force of
the Amended Rules of 2008, his claim to get the benefit of the apex
scale as per the said rules was misconceived – Apex scale was fixed
for the upgraded post w.e.f. 27.09.08 and was to be filled up by
way of selection and not as a matter of course – Further, power u/
Article 227 is to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases –
High Court wrongly set aside the well considered order of Tribunal
by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work” –
Interference was unwarranted – Orders passed by High Court set
aside.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 707
707
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
Service Law – Selection – Held: Filling up a post by selection
would always require a process of screening the eligible employees,
and cannot be automatic on the basis of seniority.
Service Law – Equation of post, determination of pay scales
– Held: Equation of post and determination of pay scales is the
primary function of the executive and not the judiciary – Ordinarily
courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is
generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions –
Constitution of India – Article 227.
Constitution of India – Article 227 – Power under – Held:
Power u/Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in
appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts
and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for
correcting mere errors.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. As discernible from the earlier order dated 1st
December, 2017, this court while disposing of the SLP had granted
a liberty to the appellant to go back to the High Court and get
the records corrected, as according to the Ld. Counsel appearing
for the appellant-State, certain facts were not correctly recorded
by the High Court in the impugned order. This court also clarified
that it had otherwise not considered the matter on merits. As
rightly submitted by the appellant-State, since this court had
granted a liberty to the appellant to approach the High Court and
had disposed of the SLP without expressing any opinion on merits,
it was intended to keep all the issues open for being considered
by the High Court in the Review Petition, and to permit the
appellant to approach this court, in case the appellant was
aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court in the Review
Petition as well as in the Writ Petition.The present appeals are
legally maintainable. [Para 8][714-D-F; 715-F]
Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure vs. Noreshwar
Raghunathrao Shende 2020 (11) SCC 399 : [2019] 4
SCR 945 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
709
2.1 The relevant Amended Rules of 2008 came into effect
from 27th September, 2008. From the relevant sub-rule (1) of
Rule 3 of the said Amended Rules, 2008 , it is abundantly clear
that one existing post of PCCF was to be upgraded as the Head
of Forest Force in each State cadre, fixing the apex scale at Rs.
80,000/- w.e.f. the date of the issue of Notification of the said
Amended Rules i.e. 27th September, 2008, and that the said post
of PCCF in the

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