IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5056 OF 2002
SAHIB SINGH .......APPELLANT(S)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5057 OF 2002
ORDER
The appellants in these two appeals were working as Turner and Electrician
respectively in the office of Executive Engineer, Satluj Yamuna Link Project, Irrigation
Department of the Government of Haryana. In the year 1997, the pay scale applied to
them was Rs.950-1500. The appellants gave representations to the department for
revision of pay scales from Rs.950-1500 to Rs.1200-2040 on the ground that turners and
electricians in the Transport Department and other departments of the State
Government had been extended the benefit of pay scale of Rs.1200-2040. After
considering their representations, the Executive Engineer, by office order dated
22.4.1997, informed the appellants that their pay was refixed in the higher pay scale of
Rs.1200-2040, subject to verification by the Accounts Officer. In pursuance of it, the
appellants were paid the refixed salary in the increased pay scale with effect from April
1997.
………2.
-2-
2. When the matter was referred to the Accounts Officer, he pointed out that
the Executive Engineer had no authority to extend the benefit of higher pay scale to the
apellants. Consequently, the Executive Engineer, by order dated 12.12.2000, withdrew
the higher pay scale and directed recovery of the excess salary paid. As the said order
was passed without issuing a show-cause notice, subsequently a show-cause notice dated
16.1.2001 was issued to the appellants. The said show-cause notice gave the reason for
withdrawal. It stated that the functions of turners, fitters and electricians in the
Transport Department were different from the functions of turners, fitters and
electricians in the Irrigation Department and, therefore, the pay scales applicable to
turners, fitters and electricians in the Transport Department could not be extended to
the appellants.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants approached the Punjab & Haryana High
Court. Their writ petitions were rejected by the High Court by orders dated 17.5.2001.
The said orders are under challenge.
4. We have considered the rival submissions. The contention of the appellants is
that except the Irrigation Department all other departments in the State have extended
the higher pay scales of Rs.1200-2040 to turners, fitters and
……..3.
-3-
electricians and there was no reason why the said pay scale should not be extended to
them. It is also contended that their representations for higher pay scale were
considered and accepted by the department and they had been paid salary in the higher
pay scale from 1997 to 2000. They submit that there was no justification for
withdrawing the higher pay scale. The respondents, on the other hand, have pointed out
that the extension of benefit of higher pay scale was contrary to the rules; that the
Executive Engineer had no authority to give a higher pay scale; that at all events, the
order was provisional and subject to acceptance, verification and approval by the
Accounts Officer; that the Accounts Officer did not approve the same; and that
therefore the Executive Engineer who had issued the order earlier was justified in
withdrawing the same.
5. As rightly contended by the respondents, merely because the turners, fitters
and electricians in some other departments were given the benefit of higher pay scale, it
is not possible to hold that the persons holding posts of similar description in the
Irrigation Department should also be extended the benefit of higher pay scale.
Admittedly, there has been no equation of the posts of turners, fitters and electricians in
the Irrigation Department to the posts of turners, fitters and electricians in other
departments. The
……..4.
-4-
respondents have contended that the qualifications, functions and duties of turners,
fitters and electricians in the Irrigation Department were different from the
qualifications, functions and duties of turners, fitters and electricians in other
departments. Further revision of pay scales or extension of higher pay scale could not be
directed or ordered by the Executive Engineer. It is a matter of policy where State
Government has to take the decision.
6. In the circumstances, we find no reasons to interfere with the order of the
High Court. We, however, make it clear that insofar as the excess amount paid between
1997 and 2000, the same shall not be recovered as the payment was not on account of
misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the appellants concerned and the department
had paid the said excess amounts being bonafide under the impression that they were
entitled to such higher pay scales.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant Sahib Singh
in C.A. No. 5056/2002 has retired, but his retirement benefits have been withheld in view
of the pendency of his appeal in this Court. If so, the State Government shall release the
same without any delay in accordance with law.
……..5.
-5-
8. Subject to the said modifications, the appeals are disposed of.
………………………J.
( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )
New Delhi; ...........................J.
October 15, 2008. ( DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA )