G.L. BATRAversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

                   [2013] 10 S.C.R. 431


                        G.L. BATRA                              A
                             v.
           STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
             (Civil Appeal No. 9015 of 2013)
                   OCTOBER 07, 2013
                                                                B
     [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.J

     Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 316 and 14 -
Appointment as Chairman of State Public Service
Commission - Of the Government servant who was drawing C
wages at a higher level than the wages fixed under
Regulations governing service conditions of the Public
Service Commission - Remuneration of the Chairman refixed
in view of his last pay drawn in government service by relaxing
the relevant rule - Subsequently the benefit withdrawn by State D
Government - Propriety of - Held: The benefit granted to the
Constitutional appointee by relaxing the regulation, could not
have been withdrawn by State Government - Especially when
master and servant relationship not established between the
Constitution~/ appointee and the State Government -             E
 Withdrawal of the benefit was discriminatory and violative of
Article 14 - Haryana Public Service Commission (Conditions
of Service) Regulations, 1972 - Regulation 6.

    Judicial Propriety - Judgment by Co-ordinate Bench - By
over-ruling the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench - Held:   F
Not proper - Appropriate course in such case is to refer the
matter to larger Bench.

   Appellant, while posted as Additional Secretary,· Lok
Sabha was drawing a salary of Rs.75001- per month. He           G
was appointed as Chairman of Haryana Public Service
Commission in exercise of powers ulArt. 316(1A) of the
Constitution. The conditions of service of the
Commission are governed by Haryana Public Service
                         431                                    H
    432      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 10 S.C.R.

A Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1972.
  The existing pay of the Chairman of Haryana Public
  Service Commission was Rs.7000/- per month. The
  Government re-fixed the recomuneration of the appellant
  as Chairman, as Rs.7500/- p.m. by relaxing the provisions
s contained in Regulation 6, as a personal measure to him.
  Thereafter, the Government withdrew the benefit and re-
  fixed his remuneration as Rs.4135/- p.m .. Writ petition,
  challenging the action of the Government, was dismissed
  by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present
c appeal.
          Allowing the appeal, the Court

         HELD: 1. The Government, after having recognized
    the status of the appellant as a constitutional appointee,
D   and relaxing Regulation 6 of 1972 Regulations so far as
    the appellant was concerned, vide its order dated
    18.03.1996, has no power to withdraw the same,
    especially when no master and servant relationship has
    been established between a constitutional appointee and
E   the State Government. Though the appellant's conditions
    of service were governed by the 1972 Regulations, but
    when the Government themselves had relaxed the same,
    especially Regulation 6, as a personal measure to him,
    then they could not withdraw that benefit to his
F   disadvantage which is clearly discriminatory and violative
    of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The appellant,
    therefore, would be entitled to all consequential benefits.
    State of Haryana is also directed to pay an award of
    Rs.50,000/- to the appellant by way of cost. [Paras 10 and
G   17] [438-H; 439-A-B; 442-C]
      2.1. The High Court has committed a serious error in
  ignoring the judgment of the High Court in Ram Phal
  Singh's case i.e. the case relating to the Member of the
  Haryana Public Service Commission, who was appointed
H as a Member along with the appellant by the Haryana
 G.L. BATRA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS             433


Government. Single Judge in that case held that first         A
proviso under Regulation 6(2) of the 1972 Regulations
which restricts the remuneration payable to a Member of
the Public Service Commission (who was drawing wages
under the Government at a level higher than the
remuneration fixed under Regulation 6(1) of 1972              B
Regulations), the last pay drawn by him under the
Government at the time of his appointment as a member
of the Public Service Commission, is violative of the
proviso under Clause (b) of Article 318 of the Constitution
of India. The order of single Judge was upheld by a           c
Division Bench of the High Court. [Paras 11 and 12] [439-
C-F]
    2.2. The Division Bench of the High Court, in the
instant case, over-ruled the judgment in Ram Phal
Singh's case which was also affirmed by another               D
Division Bench. A co-ordinate Bench of the High Court
could not have over-ruled a judgment of a Single Judge
which was already affirmed by another co-ordinate
Bench. The Division Bench has committed a serious
error of the highest order. [Para 13] (440-B-C]               E
     2.3. The Division Bench should have referred the
matter to a larger Bench, if it was in disagreement with
the judgment of the Single Judge which had already been
affirmed by a co-ordinate bench and on the doctrine of
merger, the judgment of the Single Judge had merged           F
with that of the Division Bench. Thus, in essence, the
Division Bench has over-ruled the judgment of a co-
ordinate Bench which is clearly inadmissible. Over and
above, the judgment in Ram Phal Singh's case was
followed by another co-ordinate Division Bench of the         G
High Court, Special Leave Petition against which was
dismissed by this Court. All these aspects are
sidetracked and overlooked. [Para 13] [440-C-F]
    Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs. Jagdish (2001) 2 SCC 247:
2001 (1) SCR 95; State of Bihar vs. Kalika Kuer @ Ka/ika      H
     434      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A Singh and Ors. AIR 2003 SC 2443: 2003 (3) SCR 919 Union
  of India and Ors. vs. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. AIR 1986 SC
  806: 1985 (3) Suppl. SCR 123 Sundarjas Kanya/al Bhathija
  and Ors. vs. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and Ors. AIR
  1990 SC 261: 1989 (3) SCR 405 Tribhovandas
B Purshottamdas Thakkar vs. Ratila/ Motila/ Patel AIR 1968 SC
  372: 1968 SCR 455 - relied on.
                          Case Law Reference:
           2001 (1) SCR 95           relied on          Para 14
c          2003 (3) SCR 919          relied on          Para 15
           1985 (3) Suppl. SCR 123 relied on            Para 15
           1989 (3) SCR 405          relied on          Para 15
·o         1968 SCR 455              relied on          Para 15
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
     9015 of 2013.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 04.11.2009 of the
E High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.
  13029 of 1997 (O&M).

        K.K. Venugopal, Sanjay Bhatt, Jayant Mehta, Dushyant
     Kumar, Rishi Malhotra for the Appellant.
F
         Manjit Sihgh, AAG, Vikas Sharma, Tarjit Singh, Vinay
     Kuhar, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondents.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G          K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

      2. We are in this case concerned with the question
  whether the State Government is competent to vary the
  remuneration fixed to a constitutional appointee to his
H disadvantage, after his appointment.
 G.L. BATRA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 435
           [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
     3. The appellant herein was working, in the post of senior    A
most Additional Secretary, in the Lok Sabha during the years
199,1-1994 drawing a salary of Rs.7500/- per month as basic
pay for the post in the pay scale of Rs.7500-7600 which was
revised in the pay scale of Rs.22400-525-24500 and DA @
32% w.e. f. 01.01.1996. According to the appellant, he had the     B
prospect of promotion to the Secretary General, Lok .Sabha, a
post equivalent to Cabinet Secretary which is in the pay scale
of Rs.30,000/- fixed and DA @ 32%. The age of retirement of
Secretary General, Lok Sabha, when the appellant joined
Haryana Public Service Commission, was 60 years, which was         c
later increased to 62 years.
       \


     4. The appellant, while he was working as the senior most
Additional Secretary in the Lok Sabha, was appointed as
Chairman of the Haryana Public Service Commission (for short
'the Haryana PSC'} by the Haryana State Government on              D
06.07.1994 in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 316
of the Constitution of India along with Ravinder Sharma and
Ram Phal Singh as Members of the Haryana PSC. On joining
duty, conditions of services of the appellant were governed by
the Haryana Public Service Commission (Conditions of               E
Service} Regulations, 1972 (for short '1972 Regulations'}. At
that time, the existing basic pay of the Chairman of the Haryana
PSC as per rules was Rs. 7000/- per month. The appellant then
preferred a representation on 04.10.1994 requesting the
Government to re-fix his pay as Rs.7500/- on 06.07.1994 and        F
 Rs.7600/-w.e.f. 01.09.1994 by relaxing the Rules.

     5. The Government of Haryana examining the said request
passed an order on 18.03.1996, fixing the remuneration of the
Chairman, Haryana PSC as Rs. 7500/- per month w.e.f.               G
06.07 .1994 as a personal measure, in relaxation of the
provisions contained in Regulation 6 of the 1972 Regulations.
Noticing that the above-mentioned order was silent as to from
which date the allowances, as mentioned in Regulation 6 were
to be given to the appellant, the Commission wrote a letter on     H
    436      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A 20.06.1996 to the State Government to clarify as to whether the
  allowances were to be given w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as was given
  to the other State Government employees or w.e. f. 01.01.1989
  when Regulation 6 was amended to include 'allowances' in
  addition to the basic pay. The State Government referring to
B the said letter replied on 23.06.1996 stating that DA was to be
  paid w.e.f. 01.01.1989 only and not w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as
  admissible to other State Government employees.

         6. The appellant then wrote a Demi Official letter dated
    24.9.1996 to the Chief Secretary, Haryana PSC stating that he
C   was entitled to the Dearness Allowance, which he was drawing
    while he was Additional Secretary and if the DA was paid only
    w.e.f. 08.02.1989, then the same would be in pursuance to
    Regulation 6, which already stood relaxed in his case. It was
    also pointed that that when Regulation 6 was relaxed, all
D   conditions laid down under the said Regulation also stood
    automatically relaxed. The Government, however, reiterated the
    earlier stand through their letter dated 23.10.1996. Over and
    above, the Government passed yet another order on
    29.11.1996 withdrawing its earlier order dated 18.03.1996
E   whereby the appellant's remuneration was fixed by relaxing
    Regulation 6 and a direction was also issued to recover the
    excess payment already made to the appellant. The appellant
    then filed a representation on 03.02.1997 to the Government
    of Haryana stating his grievances but the State Government
F   passed an order on 15.04.1997 re-fixing the remuneration of
    the appellant in pursuance to the Regulation 6 of the 1972
    Regulations as Rs.4135/- per month. The appellant
    subsequently made various representations but his grievances
    were not redressed. The appellant then preferred CWP
G   No.13029 of 1997 before the High Court of Punjaq and Haryana
    seeking a declaration that the first and second proviso to
    Regulation 6(2) of the Regulation are unconstitutional and ultra
    vires to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to
    quash the order dated 29.11.1996 and 15.04.1997. While the
H   writ petition was pending, the appellant retired from service as
 G.L. BATRA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 437
              [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Chairman of the Haryana PSC on 19.09.1999.                          A

     7. The writ petition filed by the appellant was later heard
by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
and the same was dismissed on 04.11.2009. Aggrieved by the
same this appeal has been preferred by special leave.               B
     8. We have heard Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Manjit Singh,
learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State
of Haryana.
                                                                    c
     9. The appellant was appointed as Chairman of the
Haryana PSC by the Governor of the State of Haryana in
exercise of powers conferred under Article 316 (1A) of the
Constitution of India. The conditions of service of the Chairman
and the Members are governed by the 1972 Regulations.               D
Regulation 6, with which we are concerned in this case, reads
as follows:

    "6. (1) The Chairman shall receive a remuneration of seven
    thousand and five hundred rupees a month and each of
    the other Members a remuneration of six thousand and five       E
    hundred rupees a month. They shall be entitled to such
    other allowances as may be admissible in future from time
    to time, to Government employees drawing the same pay
    (in addition to four hundred rupees a month as car
    allowances provide a care is maintained).                       F

     (2) The Chairman or the Member if, at the time of his
     appointment as such, is a retired Government employee
     he will be entitled to the remuneration mentioned in sub-
     regulation (1) in addition to the pension sanctioned to him.   G

          Provided that the amount of remuneration plus the
    gross amount of pension or the pension equivalent to other
    forms of retirement benefits does not exceed the pay last
    drawn by him before his retirement or the remuneration
    mentioned in sub-regulation (1) whichever is higher.            H
    438       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A               Provided further that the tota~ remuneration plus the
          gross amount of pension and the pension equivalent to
          other forms of retirement benefits, excluding the
          allowances, shall in no case exceed eight thousand rupees
          per month.
B
          (3) The Chairman or the Members who at the time of the
          appointment as such, in the service of the Central or State
          Government and does not exercise option under sub-
          regulation (1) of regulation 9 shall be paid the remuneration
          drawn by him immediately before his appointment as
c         Chairman or Member, as the case may be, or the
          remuneration mentioned in sub-regulations (1) whichever
          is· higher, till the date of his retirement from Government
          service in the normal course and thereafter his
          remuneration shall be regulated as provided in sub-
D         regulation (2).

          (4)' A member who in the absence of the Chairman on
          leave or otherwise, is asked to perform the additional
          duties of the Chairman, shall be entitled to an additional
E         remuneration at the rate of two hundred rupees a month:

                Provided that such additional duties are performed
          for a period of not less than fourteen days." ·

       10. We find that after the appellant was appointed as
F Chairman of the Haryana PSC, the Government passed an
  order on 18.03.1996 relaxing the provision contained in
  Regulation 6 and re-fixed the remuneration of the appellant as
  Chairman of the Haryana PSC as Rs. 7500/- p.m. w.e.f.
  06.07.1994 as a "personal measure to him." We find it difficult
G to appreciate the stand of the State Government as to how they
  could withdraw that benefit vide notification dated 29.11.1996
  and then re-fix the same vide order dated 15.04.1997 as
  Rs.4135/- p.m. The Government after having recognized the
  status of the appellant as a constitutional appointee, and relaxed
H Regulation 6 so far as the appellant is concerned vide its order
 G.L. BATRA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS              439
           [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
dated 18.03.1996, has no power to withdraw the same, A
especially when no master and servant relationship has been
established between a constitutional appointee and the State
Government. True, the appellant's conditions of service were
governed by the 1972 Regulations, but when the Government
themselves had relaxed the same, especially Regulation 6, as B
a personal measure to him, then we fail to see how they could
withdraw that benefit to his disadvantage which, in our view, is
clearly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.

      11. We are also of the view, as rightly contended by C
learned senior counsel for the appellant, that the High Court has
committed a serious error in ignoring the judgment of the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15159 of 1996 titled
Ram Pha/ Singh v. State of Haryana & others decided on 8th
September, 2004, a case relating to the Member of the Haryana D
Public Service Commission, who was appointed as a Member
along with the appellant by the Haryana Government vide
notification dated 16.07.1994. Learned Single Judge in that
case held that first proviso under Regulation 6(2) of the 1972
Regulations which restricts the remuneration payable to a E
Member of the Public Service Commission (who was drawing
wages under the Government at a level higher than the
remuneration fixed under Regulation 6(1) of 1972 Regulations),
the last pay drawn by him under the government at the time of
his appointment as a member of the Public Service F
Commission, is violative of the proviso under Clause (b) of
Article 318 of the Constitution of India.

     12. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court placing reliance on- Ram Phal Singh's case (supra), G
rendered the judgment in M.B. Pandove v. State of Punjab and
others on 26.2.2005. Against the said judgment, Special Leave
Petition (C) No.12336 of 2005 was preferred before this Court
which was dismissed on 13.07.2005. Further, we notice that
LPA No.115 of 2005 filed against the judgment in Ram Phal
                                                              H
    440       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 10 S.C.R.


A   Singh v. State of Haryana & others CWP 15159 of 1995 was
    also dismissed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
    High Court on 19.03.2007

        13. We find that the above-mentioned facts were brought
B to the knowledge of the Division Bench of the Punjab and
  Haryana High Court when they rendered the impugned
  judgment but the Division Bench, however, over-ruled the
  judgment in Ram Phal Singh's case (supra), which was also
  affirmed by another Division Bench in LPA No.115 of 2005 vide
  its judgment dated 19.03.2007. We fail to see how a coordinate
C bench of the High Court could over-rule a judgment of a learned
  Single Judge which was already affirmed by another coordinate
  bench. The Division Bench has committed a serious error of
  the highest order. The Division Bench should have referred the
  matter to a larger Bench, if it was in disagreement with the
D judgment of the learned Single Judge which had already been
  affirmed by a co-ordinate bench and on the doctrine of merger,
  the judgment of the Single Judge had merged with that of the
  Division Bench. Thus, in essence, the Division Bench has
  overruled the judgment of a co-ordinate bench which is clearly
E inadmissible. Over and above, it may also be noted that the
  judgment in Ram Phal Singh's case (supra) was followed by
  another coordinate Division Bench of the High Court in M.P.
  Pandove (supra). Special Leave Petition (C) No.12336 of
  2005 filed against that judgment was also dismissed by this
F Court. In the impugned judgment, all these aspects are
  conveniently sidetracked and overlooked.

        14. Law on this point has been dealt with by this Court in
    several Judgments. In Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish
G   (2001) 2 SCC 247, this Court held as follows:

          "As the learned Single Judge was not in agreement with
          the view expressed in Devilal case it would have been
          proper, to maintain judicial discipline, to refer the matter
          to a larger Bench rather than to take a different view. We
H         note it with regret and distress that the said course was
 G.L. BATRA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 441
           [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
    not followed. It is well-settled that if a Bench of coordinate   A
    jurisdiction disagrees with another Bench of coordinate
    jurisdiction whether on the basis of "different arguments"
    or otherwise, on a question of law, it is appropriate that
    the matter be referred to a larger Bench for resolution of
    the issue rather than to leave two conflicting judgments to      B
    operate, creating confusion. It is not proper to sacrifice
    certainty of law. Judicial decorum, no less than legal
    propriety forms the basis of judicial procedure and it must
    be respected at all costs."

      15. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer@ Kalika Singh and C
others AIR 2003 SC 2443 this Court held that when an earlier
decision may seems to be incorrect to a Bench of a coordinate
jurisdiction considering the question later, on the ground that a
possible aspect of the matter was not considered or not raised
before the Court or more aspects should have been gone into D
by the Court deciding the matter earlier but it would not be a
reason to say that the decision was rendered per incuriam and
liable to be ignored. The earlier judgment may seem to be not
correct yet it will have the binding effect on the latter bench of
coordinate jurisdiction. The Court held that easy course of . E
saying that earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not
permissible and the matter will have to be resolved only in two
ways - either to follow the earlier decision or refer the matter
                                                    I\
to a larger Bench to examine the issue, in case is felt that
earlier decision is not correct on merits. In this respect F
reference may also be made to the Judgment of this Court in
Union of India and others v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. AIR
 1986 SC 806, Sundarjas Kanya/al Bhathija and others v. The
 Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and others AIR 1990 SC 261
and Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Rati/al Motilal G
Patel AIR 1968 SC 372 etc.

     16. Applying the above-mentioned principle, we are clearly
of the view that the High Court has committed a grave error in
over-ruling the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Ram
                                                                     H
    442      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A Phal Singh's case (supra), which stood merged into the
                                                    a
  judgment of a Division Bench as it was affirmed by coordinate
  bench in LPA No.115 of 2005 on 19.03.2007 and failed to
  remedy the illegality meted out to the appellant.

       17. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the
8
  impugned judgment of the High Court and quash the orders
  passed by the State of Haryana dated 29.11.1996 and
  15.04.1997. The appellant, therefore, would be entitled to all
  consequential benefits which would be paid to him within a
C period of three months from the date of this order. State of
  Haryana is also directed to pay an award of Rs.50,000/- to the
  appellant by way of cost.

    K.K.T.                                     Appeal allowed.