YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS. versus NATIONAL INST. EDU. PLANNING & ADMN. & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 22 · Decided: 21-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 22 
YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS. 
v. 
NATIONAL INST. EDU. PLANNING & ADMN. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 288-289 of 2005) 
OCTOBER 21, 2010 
[DALVEER BHADARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Service Law - Pay-scale - Parity - Claim of pay parity 
with the counterparts in Central Government as granted by/V 
c Pay Commission- Held: The claimants are entitled to the 
same pay-scale as was given to the employees of their 
categories by the IV Pay Commission- The additional 
amount cannot be recovered from the claimants who have 
already received the benefit of the revised pay-scale. 
D 
The question for consideration in Civil Appeal Nos. 
288-289/2005 was whether the appellants (Assistants/ 
Stenographers-employed with respondent No. 1-
lnstitution) were entitled to pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 (as 
revised by IV Pay Commission and enhanced by 
E Anomalies Removal Committee) from the date when their 
counterparts were given that pay-scale in the Central 
Government. 
In Civil Appeal No. 290/2007, the appellants who were 
F Assistants/Stenographers in the respondent-Academy, 
an autonomous organization, filed a writ petition seeking 
to quash the Central Government Orders whereby it was 
provided that revised pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 granted 
to Assistants/Stenographers of Central Secretariat would 
not be applicable to the Assistants/Stenographers of 
G autonomous organizations, and also asking for a further 
direction that the revised pay-scale be granted to them. 
Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ petition 
granting revised pay-scale. In LPA, Division Bench of the 
H 
22 
·, 
YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS. v. NATIONAL INST. 
23 
EDU. PLANNING & ADMN. 
High Court held that the appellants were not entitled to 
A 
the revised pay-scale. Review against the order was also 
dismissed. Therefore, the instant appeal was filed. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 
8 
Civil Appeal No. 288"289/2005 
1.1 The Division Bench was not justified in setting 
aside the judgment of the Single Judge. The Division 
Bench did not consider the service regulations of the 
C 
National lhstitute of Educational Planning and 
Administration. The case of appellant No.1 was not even 
discussed or considered in the impugned judgment. 
[Para 13] [33-D] 
1.2 There is no merit in the plea of the Institute-
D 
respondent No.1 that duties, responsibilities and 
obligations of the appellants were different from their 
counterparts functioning in the Central Secretariate and 
that they were justified in not giving the same pay-scale. 
The respondent-lnstitute's stand all through was that the 
appellants be given ttie pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900. At this 
stage, respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to take a 
somersault in this manner. These appellants were getting 
E 
F 
the same pay-scale as was given to the employees of their 
categories in the Central Government up to 1.1.1986. The 
Union of India accepted the recommendation of the Vth 
and Vlth Pay Commissions and are giving them same 
pay-scale and their pay- scale could not be different 
during the IVth Pay Commission and their duties, 
obligations and responsibilities could not be different G 
only for a brief period. [Paras 14 and 15) [33-E-H; 34-A-
C] 
Civil Appeal No. 209/2007 
2. The appellants are entitled to get the benefit of H 
24 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010],14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 which their counterparts were 
getting in the Central Government ,during the relevant 
period. The appellants in the instant appeal were fully 
justified in getting the benefit qf the revised pay-scale 
from 01.01.1986. The appellants have already received the 
B benefit of the revised pay-scale. The respondents cannot 
recover the additional atnount paid to the appellants 
because. they were fully justified in getting the benefit of 
the revised pay- scale. Even otherwise also the addition/31 
amount cannot be recovered from them. The amount paid 
c to the appellants-employees pursuant to the grant of 
higher pay-scale should not be recovered unless it was 
a case of mis-representation or fraud. Admittedly, neither 
mis-representation nor fraud can be attributed to the 
appellants. In this view of the matter, respondent no.1-
D Institute would be restrained from recovering any amount 
which has already been paid to the appellants. [Paras 37 
and 39] [38-B-C; 40-B-C] 
Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. 
(1994) 2SCC 521; Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and Or

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