Supreme Court of India
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2023 INSC 1048
- Decided
- 30 November 2023
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- HIMA KOHLI
Holding
A single officer cannot be granted a higher pay scale and allowances within the same cadre governed by the same rules without a valid amendment, rendering the orders granting such benefits to respondent No.4 illegal.
Summary
The appellants, who were appointed as Assistant Scientific Officers in the Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology (CSTT), sought the same pay scale and allowances that had been granted to a fellow officer (respondent No.4) who was posted as Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine). Respondent No.4 had been given a higher pay scale and Non‑Practicing Allowance (NPA) despite not performing clinical duties, based on a misapplied Central Pay Commission recommendation. The Supreme Court examined whether the authorities could lawfully grant a higher pay scale to a single officer within the same cadre governed by the same rules, and whether the orders granting such benefits were legal. It held that the grant of a higher pay scale and NPA to respondent No.4 was illegal, as the post was governed by the 1980 Rules and could not be isolated for special treatment without amendment of the rules. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal and High Court orders, denied the appellants any entitlement to the higher pay, and ordered recovery of the excess salary from respondent No.4 and the officials who approved the benefit. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- The legality of granting a higher pay scale and Non‑Practicing Allowance to a single officer (respondent No.4) within the same cadre governed by the same recruitment rules.
- Whether the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) could be declared ex‑cadre and its pay scale altered without amendment to the governing rules.
- Whether the appellants are entitled to the same pay scale and allowances as granted to respondent No.4.
- Whether the excess salary paid to respondent No.4 and the officials who approved it should be recovered.
Subjects
service lawpay scaleex‑cadrenon‑practicing allowanceunequal treatmentadministrative lawrecovery of excess salarycentral pay commissiongovernment rules
Judgment
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 888 : 2023 INSC 1048
CASE DETAILS
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No.7747 of 2012)
NOVEMBER 30, 2023
[HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the legality of the order
passed by the High Court, rejecting the prayer made by the appellants-
Assistant Scientific Officer for grant of the same pay-scale and perquisites
as had been granted to the respondent No.4-Assistant Scientific Officer
(Medicine).
Service Law – Pay scale – Single post of same cadre – One officer
given higher pay scale than the other – Correctness:
Held: If governed by the same set of Rules, a single post of the
same cadre could not have been isolated and granted a higher pay scale by
merely considering the qualifications prescribed for the post – On facts,
representations made by the appellants-Assistant Scientific Officer claiming
that the respondent No. 4-Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) having
been granted a higher pay scale along with Non Practicing Allowance-NPA,
though not practising as a doctor, they were also entitled to the same as they
were appointed on the same post, governed by the same Rules and were
discharging the same duties – There is no justification to grant same scale-
higher pay scale to the appellants as was generously and wrongly granted
to the respondent No. 4 alongwith the NPA by treating him equal to the
Medical Officer working in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare –
Authorities were hand in gloves with the respondent No. 4 to somehow grant
him a higher pay scale and repeatedly action was taken in that direction –
Favouritism shown to the respondent No. 4 is evident from the facts – There
was no justification for grant of higher pay scale to the respondent No. 4
with effect from the date of his initial appointment – Same was illegal and
888
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 889
OTHERS
cannot withstand in judicial scrutiny – Furthermore, without there being any
amendment in the Rules, the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine)
was declared ex-cadre and the NPA granted to the respondent No. 4, though
he was not practising as a doctor, was withdrawn – Thus, the order justifying
the benefits granted to respondent No. 4 set aside – Appellants not entitled to
higher pay scales as were granted to respondent No. 4 – Assistant Scientific
Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014 – Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules,
2014 – Central Hindi Directorate (Research Assistant) Recruitment Rules,
1980. [Para 42, 53-59].
Service law – Grant of undue benefits to the employee-Assistant
Scientific Officer (Medicine) – Correctness:
Held: Respondent No. 4-Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) was
unjustifiably paid salary in the higher pay scale - One option could be that
whatever had been paid to him till date, be left as such and his pay could
be directed to be re-fixed from a future date, however, having regard to the
level of the post and the manner in which he was extended special treatment
at every step and was granted higher pay scale, said course is not adopted as
this is not a case of any bonafide error – It was a well-planned and deliberate
infraction – Thus, issuance of direction for recovery of the excess amount
paid to the respondent No. 4, and/or from the officer(s), directly involved
in the decision-making process of granting undue benefit to the respondent
No.4 – Both to be made equally liable to reimburse the exchequer for the
amount illegally disbursed to the respondent No.4 – Exchequer should not
be made to suffer on that account and either of two have to make good that
loss of undue benefit granted to the respondent No. 4. [Para 60]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
D.S. Parvathamma v. A. Srinivasan (2003) 4 SCC 705 : [2003] 3 SCR
197; A.K. Dass v. National Federation of Cooperative Sugar Factories Ltd.
and others (1994) 2 SCC 520; Union of India and others v. M.V. Mohanan
Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421 : [2020] 7 SCR 851; Punjab State Power Corporation
Limited and another v. Bal Krishan Sharma and others (2022) 1 SCC 322;
Ajit Kumar Bhuyan and others v. Debajit Das and others (2019) 12 SCC
275 : [2018] 13 SCR 1012 – referred to.
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7747 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2011 of the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in WP No.3791 of 2011.
Appearances:
Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Somesh Chandra Jha, Ms. Yashika Sharma,
Ms. Madhu Sharan, Somesh Chandra Jha, Ms. Pyoli, Amartya A. Sharan,
Ms. Bhavya Pande, Mayank Gautam, Advs. for the Appellants.
Balbir Singh, ASG, Ms. Seema Bengani, Gurmeet Singh Makker,
K Parameshwaran, Ms. Priyanka Das, Gautam Bharadwaj, Pratyush
Shrivastava, Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari, Mritunjay Kumar Sinha,
Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. The present appeal questions the legality of the order1 passed by the
High Court2, vide which the orders3 passed by the Tribunal4 were upheld by
the Division Bench of the High Court.
FACTS
2. The appellant No.1 joined the Commission for Scientific and
Technical Terminology5 as a Research Assistant (later redesignated as
Assistant Scientific Officer) on 03.01.1990. The recruitment was made in
1 Dated 15.07.2011 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3791 of 2011
2 High Court of Delhi
3 Dated 01.06.2010 in O.A.No.1762/2010 and Dated 03.08.2010 in Review Application
No.203/2010
4 The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
5 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CSTT’.
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 891
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
terms of the Central Hindi Directorate (Research Assistant) Recruitment
Rules, 19806.
3. The 1980 Rules were amended in the year 1993 providing for
educational qualifications and experience required for the post of Research
Assistant in different subjects including medicine.
4. On 02.12.1994, an advertisement was issued by the Union Public
Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Research Assistants
(Economics), (Medicine) and (Electronics) in CSTT. The advertisement
clearly provided the duties of the post namely: the evolution of terminology,
preparation of definitional dictionaries and allied work.
5. The appellants No.2 to 6 joined CSTT as Research Assistants on
various dates as detailed below:
Sr. No. Name of the Officer/Discipline Date of Joining
2 M.L. Meena (Civil Engg.) 30.11.1995
3 A.N. Selwatkar (Zoology) 01.01.1996
4 Dr. B.K. Singh (Physics) 21.12.1995
5 Deepak Kumar (Comp. Sc.) 28.11.1996
6 S.K. Chaudhary (Eix.Engg.) 06.02.1997
6. On 20.05.1997, the appellant No.1 was promoted to the post of
Scientific Officer.
7. The respondent No.4 joined CSTT as a Research Assistant
(Medicine) on 18.01.1999. Both the appellants as well as the respondent No.4
belong to the same cadre. A common seniority list of Research Assistants, as
on 28.02.1999 was prepared and circulated on 23.03.1999. In the aforesaid
seniority list, the appellants No.2 to 6 were shown at Serial No(s). 3, 5, 6, 8
and 9, respectively, whereas respondent no.4 was shown at Serial No.13. The
name of appellant no.1 was not in the seniority list of Research Assistants as
he had already been promoted to the post of Scientific Officer on 20.05.1997.
8. Vide order dated 20.07.2000, various posts in the CSTT were
redesignated. As a result, the post of Research Assistant was redesignated as
6 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1980 Rules’
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R.
Assistant Scientific Officer, whereas the post of Assistant Education Officer
was redesignated as Scientific Officer.
9. On 18.10.2000, the respondent No.4 submitted representation for
upgradation of his pay-scale. However, the same was rejected vide order
dated 26.06.2001/03.07.2001.
10. On different dates from 2002 to 2006, the appellants No.2 to 6
were promoted as Assistant Scientific Officers.
11. On 12.06.2005, the respondent No.4 left CSTT to join as Ayurvedic
Physician, in the Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicine & Homeopathy,
Puducherry. On 06.09.2005, he joined as Medical Officer (Ayurveda) in the
Directorate of Daman and Diu Medical & Health Services and thereafter
on 30.01.2006, he joined the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and
Siddha7, New Delhi, an autonomous body. All these posts were in the pay
scale of ₹8000-13500.
12. On 13.12.2006 an order was issued by the Directorate8 upgrading
the scale of pay of the respondent No.4 from ₹6500-10500 to ₹8000-13500.
In the aforesaid order, reference was made to para 52.33 of the report of
the Commission9, which dealt with the pay scales of doctors. The post of
Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) was equated with that of a doctor.
Even though the respondent No.4 was not practising as a doctor in CSTT,
he was granted higher pay-scale. He also got Non-Practising Allowance
(‘NPA’). Revision of pay was made w.e.f. 18.01.1999, i.e., the date of his
joining.
13. Immediately after passing of the aforesaid order and finding that
it may be illegal to grant higher pay-scale to one of the officers belonging
to the same cadre, governed by the same Rules another order was passed
by the Directorate on 20.04.2007, declaring the post of Assistant Scientific
Officer (Medicine) to be an ex-cadre post, in view of the grant of upgraded
pay-scale to the respondent No.4.
7 Hereinafter referred to as CCRAS.
8 Central Hindi Directorate, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of
Secondary and Higher Education.
9 Fifth Central Pay Commission Report.
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 893
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
14. Representations were made by the appellants for grant of the same
pay-scale and perquisites as had been granted to the respondent No.4, in view
of the fact that they were governed by the same set of Rules and discharging
the same duties. As the prayer made by them was not accepted, an Original
Application10 was filed by the appellants before the Tribunal11. However,
the same was permitted to be withdrawn by the Tribunal on 10.08.2009
with liberty to the appellants to file a comprehensive representation before
the competent authority.
15. On 04.09.2009 a comprehensive representation was filed by the
appellant No.1, which was rejected by the Chairman, CSTT vide order
dated 04.01.2010, on the ground that the post in-question, namely, Assistant
Scientific Officer (Medicine) had been declared as an ex-cadre post, thus
there could not be any equation of pay-scale.
16. Another application12 was filed by the appellants before the
Tribunal. However, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.03.2010,
with liberty to file a fresh application challenging the order dated 04.01.2010
because the same was not impugned in the aforesaid application.
17. Yet another Original Application13 was filed by the appellants
impugning the order dated 04.01.2010. The aforesaid application
was dismissed by the Tribunal on 01.06.2010. Thereafter, the Review
Application14 in the same Original Application filed by the appellants was
also dismissed by the Tribunal on 03.08.2010.
18. Being aggrieved, Writ Petition was filed by the appellants before
the High Court. However, the same was dismissed by the Division Bench
of the High Court. The aforesaid order is impugned before this Court.
ARGUMENTS
19. The argument raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants
is that the initial recruitment of the appellants as well as the respondent
10 O.A. No.2443 of 2008
11 Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
12 O.A.No.874 of 2010
13 O.A. No.1762 of 2010.
14 R. A.No.203 of 2010 in O.A.1762 of 2010
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R.
No.4 was made under the 1980 Rules. It was in terms of the qualifications
prescribed in the 1980 Rules. It is not a matter of dispute that the respondent
No.4 was also recruited as a Research Assistant (later redesignated as
Assistant Scientific Officer), just as the appellants were. It is also not a matter
of dispute that all the Assistant Scientific Officers were discharging the same
duties. They had qualifications in different subjects corresponding to their
posts. The respondent No.4 was not practising medicine. The Commission
made recommendations for revision of pay scales of various categories of
employees working in the Government Sector. Para 52.33 of the report of
the Commission, reliance on which was placed upon by the Directorate in
its order dated 13.12.2006, was pertaining to doctors working with Indian
Systems of Medicine & Homeopathy15. The respondent No.4 was given
parity with General Duty Officer (GDO) of Central Health Services. In
fact, the pay scales of employees working in CSTT was dealt with in paras
71.15 to 71.17 thereof.
20. It was submitted that the aforesaid order was passed, when the
respondent no.4 was not even in service with CSTT, as he was on deputation
to CCRAS, New Delhi. Immediately, after the aforesaid order was passed,
the respondent No.4 joined back CSTT on 23.01.2007. The Commission
recommended grant of parity to physicians of ISM&H/GDOs. In fact, they
were all working as medical officers, which had no comparison with the
duties being discharged by the respondent no.4.
21. In support of the argument that the appellants as well as the
respondent No.4 were discharging the same duties and their job profile
was inter-changeable, reference was made to the order dated 08.09.2021
issued by CSTT whereby the respondent No.4 was assigned the duty to
prepare separate glossary in ‘engineering graphics’. Whereas by the same
order, the appellants no.1 to 6 were also assigned duties to prepare separate
glossaries i.e. ‘workshop practice lab manual’; ‘engineering environmental
science’; Physics-1; Physics-2; ‘programme of problem solving’ and ‘basic
electrical engineering’ respectively. Reference was also made to the order
dated 01.11.2021 passed by CSTT. The same is extracted below:
15 Hereinafter referred to as ‘ISM&H’.
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 895
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
Sr. Name Name of the State English- Time
No.
Hindi-
Regional
Language
2. Dr.P.N.Shukla, Andhra Pradesh Telugu Will submit
A.D Work
Progress
Report in the
last week of
every month
3. Shri Mohan Lal Tamil Nadu/ Tamil
Veena Puducherry -do-
A.D.
5. Dr. Ashok N. Punjab Punjabi
Selvetkar, -do-
A. D.
6. Dr. Brajesh West Bengal Bangla
Kumar Singh, -do-
A.D.
7. Shri Deepak Orissa Oriya
Kumar -do-
A.D.
8. Shri Shiv Kumar Gujarat Gujarati
-do-
Choudhary, A.D.
10. Dr. BhimSen Uttar Pradesh Urdu
Behera, Sr. Sc.
Officer -do-
(Medical Science)
22. On 07.07.2017, an Office Memorandum was issued by the
Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, whereby it was stated
that NPA was to be granted only to the employees holding a clinical post. It
was argued that the illegality in grant of scale especially, the non-practicing
allowance (NPA) granted to the respondent No.4 having come to the notice
of the authorities, an order was passed by Chairman, CSTT in compliance
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R.
of the aforesaid OM on 26.07.2017, withdrawing the NPA given to the
respondent No. 4 w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
order, respondent No. 4 had submitted a representation to Chairman,
CSTT on 27.07.2017, response whereto was given by the Chairman,
CSTT on 21.08.2017. The same was challenged by the respondent No.4
by filing an Original Application16, which was dismissed by the Tribunal
vide order dated 31.07.2019. The stand taken by the Government in the
aforesaid case was that the respondent No.4 was working on the post of
Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) in CSTT and the duties assigned were
evolution of Technical Terminology and related work only and no clinical
duties were assigned to him. As for the doctors working in the Ministry of
Health and Ministry of AYUSH, they were discharging clinical duties and
since they were barred from private practice, NPA was granted to them.
As regards further status of the case, learned counsel for the respondent
No.4 submitted that the same was challenged by filing W.P.(C) No.12660
of 2019 in the High Court, which was disposed of as withdrawn vide order
dated 15.03.2023 with liberty to the respondent No.4 to file a representation
before the competent authority.
23. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the arguments raised by the learned
senior counsel for the appellants are that the respondent no.4 could not have
been taken back in service in CSTT, after he had served on different posts
in various departments in the Directorate of Medical and Health Services,
Daman and Diu, followed by the Directorate of ISM&H, Puducherry and
thereafter in the CCRAS, New Delhi, an autonomous body, as his lien on
the post had already been lost. Secondly, grant of higher pay-scale to the
respondent no.4 was totally illegal. The post of which the pay-scale was
granted to the respondent No.4, was of doctors, who were discharging
clinical duties in hospitals. The case of the respondent No.4 was not similar.
In fact, a wrong paragraph from the recommendations of the Commission
was relied upon to grant him benefit. Thirdly, one of the officers recruited
and working in the same cadre and governed by the same Rules, was made
ex-cadre without there being any legal justification therefor and without
following the due process of law. Even in the order creating a separate
16 O.A. No.3062 of 2017
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 897
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
cadre for the respondent No.4, the only reason assigned was that he had
been granted a higher pay-scale. The prayer made by the appellants is
that the orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal be set aside,
the prayers made by the appellants in the Application17 filed before the
Tribunal be granted and as a consequence thereof, orders dated 13.12.2006
and 20.04.2007 issued by the Directorate be set aside or in the alternative,
the appellants being governed by the same set of Rules and discharging the
same functions, be granted the same pay-scales and allowances as has been
granted to the respondent No.4.
24. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India, submitted
that after being selected as an Ayurvedic Physician in Directorate of
ISM&H, Government of Puducherry, in the pay scale of ₹8000-13500, the
respondent No.4 was relieved from CSTT w.e.f. 10.06.2005. However, his
lien was maintained. After being relieved from the Directorate of ISM&H,
Puducherry on 21.07.2005, respondent NO. 4 joined back in CSTT on
22.07.2005. He was again relieved on 05.09.2005 as he was selected as a
Medical Officer (Ayurveda) in the Directorate of Daman and Diu, Medical
and Health Services in the pay scale of ₹8000-13500. Even at that time, his
lien was maintained in the CSTT. While in service in the Administration of
Daman and Diu, the respondent no.4 applied for a No Objection Certificate
and the same was granted to him on 18.11.2005 by CSTT to appear in the
interview to be held on 19.11.2005, for the post of Research Officer in
CCRAS, New Delhi. At that time, he was serving with the Administration of
Daman and Diu. After he was selected as a Research Officer in the CCRAS,
he sought permission from CSTT to join CCRAS by 30.01.2006. He was
relieved from the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda) in the Administration
of Daman and Diu w.e.f. 30.01.2006 and on the same day he joined in CSTT.
Further, he was relieved on the same day forenoon to join as Research Officer
in CCRAS in the pay scale of ₹8000-13500. On the very same day, he made
a request for maintenance of his lien in the CSTT. Pertinently, respondent
No.4 got himself relieved from CCRAS in the afternoon on 17.01.2007 and
joined at CSTT on 23.01.2007, in the forenoon.
17 O.A.No.874 of 2010
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R.
25. As regards grant of higher pay scale to the respondent No.4, it
was submitted that a representation was made by him relying upon the
recommendations of the Commission with reference to the qualification
held by him and the duties being discharged. The matter was examined by
the competent authority at different levels. It was granted approval by the
Ministry of Finance as well. Considering the merit in the representation
made by the respondent No.4, vide order dated 13.12.2006, the Directorate
granted him the pay scale of ₹8000-13500 w.e.f. 18.01.1999. Subsequently,
considering the fact that there was some error in the order, a later order was
passed by the Directorate on 20.04.2007, in continuation to the earlier order
dated 13.12.2006, as a result whereof the post on which the respondent
no.4 was working, was declared ex-cadre. It was submitted that grant of a
higher pay scale or declaration of a post as ex cadre could be done by way
of an executive order which was passed with the approval of the competent
authority. Learned counsel further submitted that the post on which the
respondent No.4 is working, or the qualification required for the same are not
equal to the qualifications required for the other post of Assistant Scientific
Officer/Scientific Officer. This was the reason for grant of a higher pay scale
to the respondent No.4.
26. In support of her arguments, learned counsel for the Union of
India relied upon the judgment of this Court in D.S. Parvathamma v.
A. Srinivasan18.
27. On his part, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 referred to
the 1980 Rules as amended by the Notification F. No. 2-2/89-Admn., to
Central Hindi Directorate, (Research Assistant) Recruitment Amendment
Rules 1993. He submitted that in the schedule attached to the 1980 Rules,
there are 74 posts of Research Assistants which were bifurcated as 45
for Hindi, 4 for regional languages, 25 for different subjects including
Medicine. Essential qualifications for different posts have been prescribed
in the aforesaid Rules. For some posts Master’s Degree in subjects is
required, whereas for the post requiring knowledge of engineering, the
qualification required is only Diploma. For the post of Research Assistant
(Medicine) degree in integrated system of Indian Medicine (Bachelor of
18 (2003) 4 SCC 705
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 899
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
Indian Medicine & Surgery/ Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery)
or Ayurveda/Pharmacy or equivalent from a recognized university or
board is required. It is only the post of Research Assistant (Medicine)
that a professional degree was required and that was not so for any other
post. Hence, the argument advanced was that all these posts could not
possibly be equated. As injustice had been caused to the respondent No.
4, it was corrected.
28. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 referred to the
recommendations made by the Commission to submit that the pay scale to
which the respondent No.4 is entitled, has to be the same as granted to the
other officers working with the Central Government, having the professional
qualification of a degree in ISM&H. He further submitted that the aforesaid
recommendations mentioned that in the Fourth Central Pay Commission, the
scale of pay of doctors shall be taken as ₹2200-4000 and a corresponding
pay scale recommended by the Commission should have been granted to
the respondent No.4. In terms of the Central Civil Services Rules 1997, as
per the First Schedule, Part-A, the corresponding scale of ₹2200-4000 was
8000-13500. A representation dated 18.10.2000 was made by the respondent
No.4 for grant of higher pay scale. The matter was examined at different
levels and finally it was recommended that the respondent No.4 should be
granted the same.
29. Vide order dated 20.07.2000, issued by the Directorate, the posts
of Research Assistant and Assistant Education Officer in the CSTT were
redesignated and upgraded scale of pay was granted. The post of Research
Assistant was redesignated as Assistant Scientific Officer with pay scale of
₹6500-200-10500; Assistant Education Officer was redesignated as Scientific
Officer with pay scale of ₹7500-250-12000. Scales were given effect from
01.01.1996. Vide order dated 13.12.2006, pay scale of ₹8000-13500 was
granted to the Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) plus NPA w.e.f.
18.01.1999 as against the existing pay-scale ₹6500-10500. It was specifically
mentioned therein that a degree in ISM&H is an essential qualification for
the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine). As the respondent No.4
was the only Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) working in CSTT, a
copy thereof was endorsed to him as well.
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R.
30. Learned counsel referred to an order of the Directorate dated
20.04.2007, issued in continuation of the earlier order dated 13.12.2006,
clarifying inter-alia that the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine)
in CSTT which was granted the upgraded pay scale of ₹8000-13500 plus
NPA, will be an ex-cadre post.
31. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 then referred to the
report of the Sixth Central Pay Commission submitted in March 2008 with
reference to the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) in CSTT.
He pointed out that as there were no promotional avenues for the post in
question, Assured Career Promotion Scheme was recommended to alleviate
the problem of stagnation. The post in future was recommended to be filled
on a contractual basis. It was also recommended that the administrative
machinery may consider revising the designation of the post appropriately
to avoid any confusion vis-à-vis other similarly designated posts. The
recommendations made by the Sixth Central Pay Commission were accepted
by the Government.
32. Vide two separate Notifications issued by the Ministry of Human
Resource Development dated 17.02.2014, two sets of Rules were notified
by the Government. The first being titled as ‘The Assistant Scientific Officer
(Medicine) Rules, 201419 providing for 24 posts in different subjects with a
pay scale of ₹9300-34800 plus Grade Pay ₹4600. Vide separate Notification,
Rules titled as ‘The Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules, 201420 were
notified providing for a single post of Senior Medical Officer (Medicine) in
the pay scale ₹15600-39100 plus Grade Pay ₹5400.
33. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 further referred to an
order dated 26.08.2013, issued by the Department of Higher Education,
MHRD, Government of India directing redesignation of the post of Assistant
Scientific Officer (Medicine) in the pay scale ₹8000-13500 plus NPA as that
of Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine).
19 Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine), Commission for Scientific and Technical
Terminology, New Delhi, Recruitment Rules, 2014.
20 Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine), Commission for Scientific and Technical
Terminology, New Delhi, Recruitment Rules, 2014.
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 901
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
34. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent
no.4 relied upon the judgments of this Court in A.K. Dass v. National
Federation of Cooperative Sugar Factories Ltd. and others21, Union
of India and others v. M.V. Mohanan Nair22, and Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited and another v. Bal Krishan Sharma and others23.
35. In response, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted
that para 52 of the recommendations made by the Commission pertained to
the officers possessing a degree in ISM&H and working with the Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare on Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ posts. Respondent
No.4 may have the same qualification, but he was not in the Health
Department, practicing as a doctor. She further submitted that before the
representation made by the respondent No.4 was accepted, earlier thereto,
similar representations made by him were rejected. She further referred to
the stand taken by the Union of India before the Tribunal in a challenge
made by the respondent No.4 to the withdrawal of non-practicing allowance
granted to him earlier. It was stated that the respondent No.4 is not governed
by the (Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine), Commission for Scientific and
Technical Terminology, New Delhi, Recruitment Rules, 2014) as those Rules
are meant for fresh direct recruitment. Further, the stand was that the Office
Memorandum dated 07.07.2017 is not applicable to the respondent No. 4 and
therefore, the subsequent order of the Chairman, CSTT dated 26.07.2017
withdrawing NPA granted to the respondent No. 4 was non-est in the eyes
of law. She referred to the judgment of this Court in Ajit Kumar Bhuyan
and others v. Debajit Das and others24, in support of her arguments.
36. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant referred record.
37. Before we proceed to deal with the respective arguments raised by
learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to sum up the facts
of the case in a chronological order.
21 (1994) 2 SCC 520.
22 (2020) 5 SCC 421.
23 (2022) 1 SCC 322
24 (2019) 12 SCC 275
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R.
37.1 The appellants No.2 to 6 joined CSTT as Research Assistants on
various dates as detailed below:
Sl. No. Name of the Officer/Discipline Date of Joining
2 M.L. Meena (Civil Engg.) 30.11.1995
3 A.N. Selwatkar (Zoology) 01.01.1996
4 Dr. B.K. Singh (Physics) 21.12.1995
5 Deepak Kumar (Comp. Sc.) 28.11.1996
6 S.K. Chaudhary (Eix.Engg.) 06.02.1997
37.2 18.01.1999 Respondent No. 4 joined CSTT as a
Research Assistant in the pay scale
of ₹6500-10500.
37.3 20.7.2000 The post of Research Assistant was
re-designated as that of Assistant
Scientific Officer.
37.4 18.10.2000 Respondent No. 4 submitted a
representation for upgradation
of his pay, which was rejected.
Subsequent representations filed by
the respondent No. 4 for upgradation
of his pay were also rejected.
37.5 08.06.2005 Respondent No. 4 was relieved by
the CSTT to enable him to join the
Directorate of ISM&H, Puducherry
as a Ayurvedic Physician.
37.6 12.6.2005 Respondent No. 4 joined the
Directorate of ISM&H, Puducherry
as a Ayurvedic Physician in the pay
scale of 8000-275-13500.
37.7 21.07.2005 Respondent No.4 was relieved
by the Directorate of ISM&H,
Puduchery.
37.8 22.07.2005 Respondent No. 4 joined back in
CSTT, Delhi.
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 903
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
37.9 05.09.2005 Respondent No. 4 was relieved by
the CSTT, Delhi.
37.10 06.09.2005 Respondent No. 4 joined as a
Medical Officer (Ayurveda) in
the Directorate of Daman & Diu,
Medical and Health Services in the
pay scale of ₹8000-275-13500.
37.11 28.01.2006 Respondent No. 4 was relieved
by the Directorate of Daman &
Diu, Medical & Health Services as
Medical Officer (Ayurveda) in the
pay scale of 8000-275-13500.
37.12 30.01.2006. Respondent No. 4 rejoined CSTT,
Delhi.
On the same day, respondent No. 4
was relieved by the CSTT and he
joined CCRAS, Delhi as a Research
Officer (Ayurveda) in the afternoon
in the pay scale of 8000-275-13500.
37.13 13.12.2006 Upgradation of pay was granted
to the respondent No. 4. w.e.f.
18.01.1999. The pay scale of the
respondent No. 4 was upgraded
from 6,500-10,500 to 8,000-13,500
plus NPA.
37.14 17.01.2007 Respondent No. 4 was relieved
from the CCRAS, Delhi.
37.15 23.01.2007 Respondent No. 4 joined the CCST
as Assistant Scientific Officer
(Medicine).
37.16 20.04.2007 Post of Assistant Scientific Officer
(Medicine) was declared as an ex-
cadre post.
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R.
37.17 14.08.2008 Representation was made by the
appellants for grant of the same
pay scale as was granted to the
respondent No. 4, as they belonged
to the same cadre.
37.18 2008 The representation filed by the
appellants was not accepted. OA
No. 2443 of 2008 was filed by the
appellants seeking direction to the
official respondents for grant of the
same pay scale, as was granted to
the respondent No. 4.
37.19 10.08.2009 The OA filed by the appellants was
withdrawn with liberty to them
to file a representation before the
competent authority.
37.20 04.09.2009 A comprehensive representation
was made by the appellant No. 1.
OA No. 874 of 2010 was filed by
the appellants.
37.21 04.01.2010 The aforesaid representation was
rejected stating that the post of the
respondent No. 4 had been declared
as an ex-cadre post, hence, equation
of pay is not possible.
37.22 17.03.2010. The aforesaid OA was dismissed
as withdrawn with liberty to the
appellants to file a fresh application
challenging t he order dated
04.01.2010.
37.23 2010 OA No. 1762 of 2010 was filed by
the appellants impugning the order
dated 4.01.2010.
37.24 01.06.2010 The aforesaid OA was dismissed by
the Tribunal.
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 905
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
37.25 03.08.2010 Review Application No. 203 of
2010 against the order of the
Tribunal dated 01.06.2010 was
also dismissed.
37.26 17.05.2011 A writ petition was filed before the
High Court of Delhi challenging
the orders dated 01.06.2010 and
03.08.2010.
37.27 15.07.2011 The said writ petition was dismissed
by the High Court. It is the aforesaid
order that has been impugned
before this Court.
38. Following were the developments during the pendency of the
matter before this Court:
38.1 26.07.2017 NPA granted to the respondent No.
4 was withdrawn.
OA No. 3062 of 2017 was filed by
respondent No. 4 impugning the
order of withdrawal of NPA.
38.2 31.07.2019 The aforesaid OA filed by the
respondent No. 4 was dismissed by
the Tribunal.
38.3 2019 Writ Petition No. 12260 of 2019
was filed by the respondent No.
4 challenging the order dated
31.7.2019, passed by the Tribunal.
38.4 15.02.2023 The aforesaid writ petition was
disposed of granting liberty to
the respondent No. 4 to make a
representation against withdrawal
of NPA.
39. From a perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that
immediately after joining as a Research Assistant, the respondent No. 4
started making representations for upgradation of his pay scale, which
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R.
was rejected a number of times. Apparently, being a favourite employee,
he started the process of going on deputation to different organisations.
On three occasions, he was granted NOC and was selected also. While
working at the CSTT, the respondent No. 4 was getting pay in the scale
of ₹6500-10500, but on deputation, the pay scale was ₹8000-13500. It
appears that the sole object of going on deputation was to get a higher
pay scale.
40. From the aforesaid conduct of the respondent No. 4, it is evident
that despite being selected as a Research Assistant [re-designated as
Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine)], he was not interested to serve
his parent organisation but was more interested in getting a higher pay
scale while going on deputation. He came back to his parent department
on 23.01.2007, only after the post on which he was working with the
CSTT was granted a higher pay scale of ₹8,000-13,500, from the date of
his appointment. Even the recommendations of the Commission which
were relied upon to give a higher pay scale to the respondent No. 4, were
not strictly applicable to him.
41. The chain of events which happened thereafter is more interesting.
Representations were made by the appellants claiming that the respondent
No. 4 having been granted a higher pay scale along with NPA, though
not practising as a doctor, they were also entitled to the same as they
were appointed on the same post, governed by the same Rules and were
discharging the same duties. The nomenclature of the post and the duties
were different only with reference to the subjects they were dealing with.
Respondent No. 4 had joined the service as a Research Assistant (Medicine)
in pursuance of an advertisement issued, defining the qualifications, duties
and the scale for the post. The result of grant of higher pay scale to him
from the date he joined service would mean that even for the intermittent
period when he remained in service with CSTT, though he remained on
deputation for quite some time in a higher pay scale, he also got a higher
pay.
42. The favouritism shown to the respondent No. 4 is evident from
the fact that a portion of recommendations made by the Commission which
were relied upon to grant him a higher pay scale, were with reference to
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 907
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
the Indian System of Medicines and Homeopathy for the Medical Officers
working at different levels. Admittedly, respondent No. 4 was neither
appointed nor was he working as a Medical Officer, though his qualification
may have been the same. Non-application of mind by the respondent No.
1-Union of India is evident from the fact that though he was not practising
in Medicine, respondent No. 4 was even granted NPA which is granted to
doctors who are not allowed to carry on private practice while working
as Medical Officer.
43. Para 52.32 to 52.34 of the report of Commission is extracted
below:
“PHYSICIANS OF INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE &
Homeopathy (ISM&H)
×× ×× ××
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
Central Indigenous 52.32. The Tikku Committee recommended
& Homoeo Medical a separate organised service for ISM&H.
Service The Consultancy Study has suggested
integration of ISM&H doctors in the
CHS with equal opportunity for high level
posts. The Administrative Ministry has
underline the need for building organised
career management at par with GDOs of
the CHS. To carry through the objectives
of a separate Department of ISM&H, we
recommend that an organised service,
called the Central Indigenous & Homoeo
Medical Service, may be constituted
to include the 182 practitioners, and
other physicians of these systems in
the Ministry of Labour, Deptt. Of Coal,
Armed Forces Ayurveda Dispensary
and the Pharmacopoeia Labs of Indian
Medicine and Homoeopathy, carrying
medical qualifications
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R.
Parity with GDMOs 52.33 ISM&H Physicians have parity
at entry level with Allopathic doctors.
But for career progression they have
to wait for vacancies. The Fourth CPC
recommended parity of Physicians
of ISM&H with GDOs of CHS, by
upgrading existing post in the scale of
Rs.650-1200 to Rs.2200-4000, provided
that the incumbents possess degrees. The
Tikku Committee also recommended
similarly. But both were silent regarding
career progression. The Consultancy
Study as well as administrative Ministry
have recommended that parity of ISM&H
Physicians with Allopathic doctors. As
specialisations are yet to emerge with
concrete foundation in ISM&H, we
recommend a general parity with GDOs
as follows:
Level Designation Scale Residency
3rd ACP
Chief Medical Rs.4500-5700 -
Officer
(Selection
Grade)
nd
2 ACP Chief Medical Rs.3700-5000 4 yrs.
Officer
st
1 ACP Senior Rs.3000-4500 5 yrs.
Medical
Officer
Entry Medical Rs.2200-4000 4 yrs.
Officer
Career progression beyond the selection
grade will continue to be based on
vacancies. Fourth CPC upgraded only
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 909
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
those degree holders who were in the
scale of Rs.650-1200 (pre-revised).
The admi nis trat ive Mi ni s try has
supported the demand for a general
upgradation as was done by Third CPC
for Allopathic Doctors and Fourth CPC
for Veterinarians. As the educational
requirement of the post are the same
for MBBS doctors, we may recommend
that all posts requiring medical practice
in ISM&H and a degree in ISM&H as
the minimum qualification be placed in
the entry scale of Rs.200-4000 and all
the posts except those in Delhi Admn.
be merged in the Central Indigenous &
Homoeo Medical Service.
Allowances 52.34. The Third CPC had recommended
withdrawal of NPA from the ISM&H
Doctors. However, the Fourth CPC
granted it at rates at par with Allopathic
Doctors. As the Physicians of ISM&H
are equally concerned with Medical
practices teaching and research, we
recommend that allowances and facilities
granted to GDOs of Allopathic stream
should also be granted to Physicians
of the ISM&H on the same terms and
conditions.”
44. It will not be out of place to mention here that in the recommendations
made by the Commission, there was a separate paragraph 71.16 that dealt
with employees working in CSTT. However, the same was ignored by the
respondent No. 1-Union of India.
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R.
45. Further, paras 71.15 to 71.17 of the report of the Commission are
extracted below:
“COMMISSION FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL
TERMINOLOGY AND CENTRAL HINDI DIRECTORATE
Organisation and 71.15 The main task of the Commission
functions for Scientific and Technical Terminology
( CSTT) is the evolution of scientific and
technical terminology in Hindi and other
Indian languages, whereas for Central
Hindi Directorate, it is compilation of
bilingual and trilingual dictionaries. The
nature of the work in the two organisations
is basically academic and research oriented.
We therefore recommend that the two
organisations should be converted into
autonomous institutions. The pay scales
and promotion prospects of research staff
in both the organisations have suffered over
a period of time. Department of Education
appointed various expert Committees from
time to time but the recommendations have
not been implemented so far. In this context,
we have reviewed the entire cadre structure
of the two organisations.
Our 71.16. We feel that the cadre structure of
Recommendations the technical post in the Commission for
CSTT Scientific & Technical Terminology needs to
be re-arranged. The post of Research Assistant
(Rs.1640-2900) should be redesignated as
Assistant Scientific Officer in the pay scale
of Rs.2000-3500, in view of the nature of
their work and the fact that the recruitment
qualification is a post graduate degree. The
pay scale of Assistant Education Office/
Scientific Officer may be revised to the
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 911
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
replacement scale of Rs.2500-4000, while
Assistant Director (Rs.2200-4000) will
continue in the same pay scale and will be
given the corresponding replacement scale.
While the initial recruitment at Research
Assistant level shall be made by direct
recruitment, the posts of Assistant Education
Officer and Scientific Officer should be filled
by promotion. The post of Assistant Education
Officer will also then be redesignated as
Scientific Officer. For the grade of Asstt.
Director, the method of recruitment should be
made 50% by promotion and 50% by direct
recruitment.
Central Hindi 71.17 The cadre of research posts in the
Directorate Central Hindi Directorate needs a similar re-
organisation. The pay scales and designation
of Research Assistant (Rs.1640-2900) and
Assistant Education Officer (Rs.2000-
3200) should be changed to Assistant
Research Officer and Research Officer in the
scales of Rs.2000-3500 and Rs.2500-4000
respectively. It is also recommended that the
pay scale of General Editor (Hindi) should
be revised to Rs.3700-5000, but it should
continue to be filled by direct recruitment.
The initial recruitment at Research Assistant
level should be made 100% by direct
recruitment and those at Research Officer
and Deputy Director/Regional Director level
should be by promotion. The method of
recruitment at Assistant Director level should
be changed to 50% by promotion and 50%
by direct recruitment.”
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R.
46. However, when the authorities realised their mistake, to cover
up the same, order dated 20.04.2007 was issued and the post of Assistant
Scientific Officer (Medicine), the only one in the cadre manned by the
respondent No. 4, was declared to be an ex-cadre post. The reason assigned
was that higher pay scale had been granted to the respondent No. 4. There
was no corresponding amendment in the Rules or otherwise as the post of
Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) was still governed by the 1980 Rules
which govern the parties. No justification for this action was offered by the
respondents at the time of hearing of the matter.
47. Still further, the authorities realised that the post on which
respondent No. 4 was working was not that of a Medical Officer with
which his pay scale was equated and he was granted NPA. The order
dated 26.07.2017 vide which higher pay scale and NPA was granted to
the respondent No. 4, was withdrawn to the extent of grant of NPA. The
said order was challenged by the respondent No. 4 by filing an Original
Application before the Tribunal. The same was dismissed by the Tribunal
on 31.7.2019. The stand taken therein by the official respondents was that
the respondent No. 4 was working on the post of Assistant Scientific Officer
(Medicine) in CSTT, where his duties could not be equated with the doctors
working in the Ministry of Health and Ministry of AYUSH. As they are
barred from private practice, they were granted NPA. The writ petition
challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal was dismissed as withdrawn
with liberty to move a representation before the competent authority. The
matter remains here as none of the counsel pointed out any subsequent
development.
48. Apparently, the authorities favouring the respondent No. 4 and the
respondent No. 4 together were not able to achieve the objective of granting
a higher status and pay scale to him. By every action, the respondent No.
4 generated litigation and planned new devices to steal a march over other
similarly situated as him.
49. At the time of recruitment of the appellants as well as the respondent
No. 4, they were governed by the 1980 Rules. The post was designated as
that of a Research Assistant. It provided for different subjects including
Medicine. Vide order dated 20.07.2000, the Government re-designated the
post of Research Assistant to that of Assistant Scientific Officer. As is evident
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 913
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
from the notification dated 19.11.1993, the mode of recruitment provided
for the post was 75% by way of direct recruitment/transfer and 25% by way
of transfer on deputation. There was no other post.
50. Vide order dated 26.08.2013, issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resources Development, the post of Assistant Scientific
Officer (Medicine) was re-designated as Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine).
Needless to add that the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) was
still governed by the 1980 Rules, where no designation of Senior Scientific
Officer (Medicine) was available. No other set of Rules were referred to
as on the date of issuance of the aforesaid order, by which the new post
would be governed.
51. The intention of the authorities who went out and out to favour the
respondent No. 4 so as to grant him higher pay scale, was now sought to be
achieved by notifying a separate set of Rules for him. Two set of Rules were
notified on 17.02.2014, namely, Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules
2014 and Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014. There is nothing
provided in the Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014, notified
on 17.02.2014 to show that till the framing of the aforesaid Rules, any earlier
Rules governing the post had been repealed. Rule 2 thereof provided for
the number of posts with classification as per Schedule attached therewith.
In the Schedule, the name of the post was mentioned as Assistant Scientific
Officer25. The only difference between the 1980 Rules and Assistant Scientific
Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014 was that in the earlier Rules, in the column
of post, subjects such as Biochemistry, Biotechnology and Microbiology
and the words ‘or any other subject as per the requirement’ were not there.
The classification of the post was same. The method of recruitment was
provided as direct recruitment. Only the subject of Medicine was deleted but
the title of the Rule was Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014.
25 Assistant Scientific Officer (Agriculture, Anthropology, Archaeology, Biochemistry,
Biotechnology, Botany, Chemistry, Commerce, Drawing and Painting, Economics,
Education, Engineering (Civil, Electrical, Computer Science, Mechanical, Electronics,
Textile, Mineral, Leather Technology), Geography, Geology, Home Science,
Journalism, Library Science, Linguistics, Management, Mathematics, Philosophy,
Physics, Political Science, Psychology, Public Administration, Sociology, Zoology or
any other subject as per the requirement.
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R.
52. As far as Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014 are
concerned, the same were notified only for one post with higher pay scale
as compared to the Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014. The
qualification prescribed therein for the post was the same, as was provided
for in the 1980 Rules that governed the post of Assistant Scientific Officer,
which included the subject Medicine also. The method of recruitment
provided in the above Rules was by way of direct recruitment.
53. Notification of Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014
dated 17.02.2014 issued only to deal with a single post of Senior Scientific
Officer (Medicine) amply demonstrates that the preparation for granting
undue benefit to the respondent No. 4 had started well in advance. Firstly,
the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) was re-designated as
Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) and thereafter, separate Rules were
notified for that post.
54. As has already been noticed in the preceding paragraphs,
immediately after joining as a Research Assistant (later on re-designated
as Assistant Scientific Officer), the respondent No. 4 started making
representations for granting him higher pay scale. However, when his
request was not accepted, he went on deputation thrice to different places
in the higher pay scale. Finally, his request for grant of higher pay scale
was accepted. How a single person in the same cadre on the same post
governed by the same set of Rules was granted a higher pay scale solely by
relying upon the recommendations made by the Commission, which were
not applicable. The other members of the cadre (appellants) had raised
objections to this.
55. Then the case took a new turn. Without there being any
amendment in the Rules, firstly the post of Assistant Scientific Officer
(Medicine) was declared ex-cadre on 20.04.2007 and secondly, the NPA
granted to the respondent No. 4, though he was not practising as a doctor,
which was withdrawn on 26.07.2017. Though the appellants had not got
any relief either from the Tribunal or the High Court, but still there was a
sword hanging on the head of the respondent No. 4 on account of getting
undue benefit. Firstly, the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine)
was re-designated as Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) vide order
dated 26.08.2013 and thereafter, Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine)
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 915
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
Rules, 2014 were framed for a single post of Senior Scientific Officer
(Medicine) in CSTT. There is no document referred to from the record
that the respondent No. 4 was ever appointed as a Senior Scientific Officer
(Medicine) in terms of the Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules,
2014, which provided only direct recruitment as a mode of recruitment.
Even the stand taken by the Government in the Original Application filed
by the respondent No. 4 before the Tribunal challenging the withdrawal
of NPA was that the post under the Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine)
Rules, 2014 could be filled by way of direct recruitment only. It was the
specific stand of the Government that Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine)
Rules, 2014 are not applicable to respondent No. 4. It is so evident from
the order passed by the Tribunal.
56. If the Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014 are not
applicable to the respondent No. 4, the post of the respondent No. 4 with
the notification of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014
goes in vacuum, as this subject is not mentioned in the Assistant Scientific
Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014. As a result, he may be governed by the
1980 Rules. There was nothing pointed out or referred to at the time of the
hearing regarding promotional avenues from the post of Assistant Scientific
Officer (Medicine).
57. From the facts, as have been noticed above, in our opinion, the
authorities were hand in gloves with the respondent No. 4 to somehow grant
him a higher pay scale and repeatedly action was taken in that direction. If
governed by the same set of Rules, a single post of the same cadre could
not have been isolated and granted a higher pay scale by merely considering
the qualifications prescribed for the post. There was no challenge laid down
by the respondent No. 4 to the Rules under which he was recruited. He
had accepted his appointment letter under the 1980 Rules and had joined
service accordingly.
58. We do not find any justification to grant same scale to the appellants
as was generously and wrongly granted to the respondent No. 4 by treating
him equal to the Medical Officer working in the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare. As even that scale was wrongly granted to him, there was
no justification for grant of higher pay scale to the respondent No. 4 vide
order dated 13.12.2006, with effect from 18.01.1999, i.e., the date of his
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R.
initial appointment. The same was certainly illegal and cannot withstand
in judicial scrutiny.
59. As a consequence, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal
and the High Court are quashed. The order dated 04.01.2010 justifying
the benefits granted to respondent No. 4 is set aside. As a result, even the
appellants are not held entitled to higher pay scales as were granted to
respondent No. 4.
60. Since during the interregnum, the respondent No. 4 had been
unjustifiably paid salary in the higher pay scale, one option could be that
whatever had been paid to him till date, be left as such and his pay could
be directed to be re-fixed from a future date. However, having regard to
the level of the post of the respondent No. 4 and the manner in which he
was extended special treatment at every step and was granted higher pay
scale, we do not propose to adopt that course as this is not a case of any
bonafide error. It was a well-planned and deliberate infraction. We therefore
direct recovery of the excess amount paid to the respondent No. 4, though
in instalments and/or from the officer(s), who were directly involved in the
decision-making process of granting undue benefit to the respondent No.4.
Both should be made equally liable to reimburse the exchequer for the
amount illegally disbursed to the respondent No.4. The exchequer should
not be made to suffer on that account and either of two shall have to make
good that loss of undue benefit granted to the respondent No. 4.
61. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Headnotes prepared by: Appeal allowed.
Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search