LexSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus DEBASISH MUKHERJEE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1077
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
v.
DEBASISH MUKHERJEE AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3480 of 2005)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2011
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]
West Bengal Service Rules (Part I):
A
B
r.55(4) - Applicability of - Appointment of an employee c
'D' as a Section Writer/Typist in the Original Side of the
Calcutta High Court on 19.3.1964 - Promoted as Typist,
Grade I with effect from 2.4.1981 - On 9.9.1985, he was
selected to ihe post of Lower Division Assistant (LOA) - On
1.4.1989, he was awarded the second higher scale under the
D
20 years Career Advancement Benefit Scheme - Claim by
employees in the cadre of LOA and senior to 'D' for re-fixation
of pay at par with the pay of 'D' ul r.55(4) or under any other
service law principle - Entitlement - Held: 'D' was given a
higher pay for wholly erroneous reasons - He was promoted
E
to the post of Typist, Grade I although he was not confirmed
in the lower post at that time - 'D' was appointed as LOA as a
direct recruit on 9.9.1985 and, therefore, he was not entitled
to the benefit of second higher scale with effect from 1. 4. 1989,
as that benefit was available only at the end of 20 years
service under the career advancement scheme - If these two
F
benefits erroneously given were deleted, there would be no
ground for the seniors to claim any benefit on the basis of
parity of pay- Moreover, the post of LOA was neither a higher
nor a promotional post, therefore, r.55(4) was inapplicable -
The fact that a mistake was committed in the case of 'D' by G
extending the benefit under Career Advancement Scheme
cannot be a ground to direct perpetuation of mistake by
directing similar benefit to other senior employees -
Moreover, the fact that a single employee ('D') was wrongly
1077
H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011.] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A given some benefit was certainly not an exceptional
circumstance so as to invoke applicability of r.49 - Therefore,
neither under r.55(4) nor under the general principles of
service jurisprudence, the seniors were entitled to claim
benefit of re-fixation of their pay at par with the pay of their
B junior 'D' - Service Law - Pay fixation - Claim for re-fixation
of pay - Tenability.
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14 - Held: Guarantee
of equality before Jaw is a positive concept and cannot be
enforced in a negative manner - If an illegality or an
C irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or
group of Individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
Courts and Tribunals to require the State to commit the same
irregularity or illegality in their favour on the. reasoning that
they have been denied the benefits which have been illegally
D or arbitrarily extended to others - Service Law.
One 'D' was appointed as a Section Writer/Typist in
the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court on 19.3.1964.
He was· brought under the regular establishment on
E 1.9.1979 and was allowed the pay-scale of Rs.230-425
under the West Bengal Services Revision of Pay and
Allowances Rules, 1970 (WB (ROPA) Rules, 1970). The
said pay-scale was subsequently revised as Rs.300-685/
- with effect from 1.4.1981 under the WB (ROPA) Rules,
F 1981. He wai; promoted as Typist, Grade I in the scale of
Rs.380-910/-with effect from 2.4.1981. He appeared in the
selection examination for the post of Lower Division
Assistant and was selected and appointed on 9.9.1985.
On such appointment his pay was fixed as Rs.550 in the
G scale of Rs.300-685/-,. taking into account his last pay
drawn in the former Grade-I Post. On exercising option
under the W.B. ROPA Rules, 1990, his pay scale was
revised and re-fixed with effect from 1.8.1986. On
1.4.1989, he was awarded the second higher scale under
the 20 years Career Advancement Benefit Scheme.
H
STATE OF WEST 13ENGAL AND ORS. v. DEBASISH1079
MUKHERJEE AND ORS.
The State Government held that the Career A
Advancement benefits granted to 18 employees including
that of 'D' were in order. Immediately thereafter, fifty
employees (senior to 'D') including respondents 1 to 5,
made representation to the Chief Justice, stating that
since the State Government had found the pay fixation
B
of 'D' to be in order and therefore, their pay may also be
re-fixed to be at par with the pay of their junior - 'D' by
relaxing Rule 55('4) of WBSR. Meanwhile 'D' retired from
service. The office of the Accountant General returneExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.