IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 65-67_____ OF 2009 @ S.L.P. (C) NOS.12512-12514 of 2007

Er. Gurcharan Singh Grewal & Anr.        ...Appellants

Vs.

Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These three appeals arise out of orders dated

23rd September, 2005, 21st April, 2006 and 23rd

February,  2007,  relating  to  Civil  Writ

Petition No.16811 of 2003 and Review Petitions

filed therein before the High Court of Punjab

and Haryana at Chandigarh.

1

3. The appellants herein filed the aforesaid writ

petition,  inter  alia,  for  the  following

relief:- “(iv) Quashing the order no. 202 dated 9.7.2002 (Annexure  Indian  Penal  Code-3)  passed  by  the respondent No.3 withdrawing the benefits of pay fixation already granted to petitioners Satinder Singh and directing the respondent to step-up the pay of the petitioners to that of their junior Sh. Ram Prakash Shori and the petitioners may be granted all arrears of Pay, retiral benefits and other consequential benefits with interest @ 18% per annum.”

4. In  the  written  statement/counter  affidavit

filed  on  behalf  of  the  respondent,  Punjab

State Electricity Board, and its officers, it

was  stated  in  Paragraph  7  that  the  relief

claimed  by  the  petitioner  had  already  been

granted.  When the writ petition came up for

final  hearing  the  High  Court  on  23rd

September,  2005,  disposed  of  the  same  by

passing the following order :-

2

“In view of the averments made in paragraph 7  of  the  written  statement,  the  writ petition has been rendered infructuous. Disposed of as such.”

5. Subsequently,  a  review  petition  came  to  be

filed by the writ petitioners before the High

Court  claiming  that  the  statement  made  in

paragraph  7  of  the  written  statement,

concerned only the writ petitioner No.2, and

without considering the case of the respondent

No.1 on a separate footing he too was denied

relief, although he was not covered by such

statement.  When the Review Petition came up

for  hearing  on  21st April,  2006,  learned

counsel for the petitioners was not present

and on the submissions made on behalf of the

respondents that no relief had been claimed in

the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner

No.1,  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  review

petition by passing the following order:-

3

“Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the relief claimed in the review petition is not claimed in the main petition for petitioner No.1. Therefore,  the  review  petition  is  not maintainable. Dismissed.”

6. On dismissal of the review petition in the

absence of the counsel for the petitioners, a

miscellaneous  application  was  filed  for

modification of the order passed in the review

petition, which was also dismissed by the High

Court on 23rd February, 2007.

7. It is against the said three orders of the High

Court that these appeals have been filed.

8. Appearing for the appellants, Mr. Nidesh Gupta,

learned senior advocate, submitted that when the

writ  petition  was  filed  on  behalf  of  both  the

appellants, it was only natural that the reliefs

therein had been claimed in respect of both and it

4

could not be confined to the appellant No.2 alone,

as was done in the instant case, merely on account

of the statement made in the written statement of

the respondents that the grievance of the appellant

No.2  had  already  been  addressed.   Mr.  Gupta

submitted  that  the  appellants  were  similarly

situated and it was their common ground that they

were  receiving  lesser  salary  than  their  junior.

Mr. Gupta submitted that Paragraph 7 of the writ

petition  was  absolutely  clear  that  it  was  the

common case of the appellants that since they were

receiving lesser pay than their junior, Shri Ram

Prakash Shori, who was receiving a higher salary,

their salaries were also required to be stepped up

to that of Shri Shori.  Mr. Gupta also urged that

the position would be further clarified from the

question of law formulated in Paragraph 9 of the

writ  petition.   It  was  urged  that  it  was,

therefore, wrong to say that no case had been made

out on behalf of the appellant No.1 and hence no

relief could be granted in his favour.

5

9. Referring to prayer (iv) in the writ petition,

Mr.  Gupta  urged  that  specific  reference  had

been  made  to  the  appellant  No.2,  Satinder

Singh, since his pay had been stepped up but

was, thereafter, reduced by an order dated 9th

July,  2002,  passed  by  the  respondent  No.3

withdrawing the benefit of pay fixation which

had already been given to him.  Mr. Gupta urged

that the prayer, however, was not confined to

the appellant No.2 alone, but to the appellant

No.1 also, as otherwise the very purpose of him

being made petitioner No.1 in the writ petition

would be meaningless.  Mr. Gupta submitted that

the High Court was  misled into relying on the

statement made in paragraph 7 of the written

statement filed by the respondent in dismissing

the writ petition as far as the appellant No.1

was  concerned.  Even  while  considering  the

review  petition,  in  the  absence  of  learned

counsel  for  the  appellants,  the  Court  was

persuaded  to  accept  the  statement  made  on

behalf of the respondent that relief claimed in

6

the review petition had not been claimed in the

writ petition itself as far as the appellant

No.1 is concerned and the review petition was

not,  therefore,  maintainable.   Mr.  Gupta

submitted that the orders passed on the writ

petition and review petitions were passed on an

erroneous understanding that the appellant No.1

had  not  prayed  for  any  relief  in  the  writ

petition and he was not therefore entitled to

the reliefs prayed for by the appellants.

10. Mr. Jagdish Singh Chhabra, who appeared for

the  Punjab  State  Electricity  Board  and  its

authorities,  reiterated  the  submissions  made

before the High Court that in the absence of

any case being made out or any relief being

claimed on behalf of the appellant No.1 in the

writ  petition  the  High  Court  had  quite

correctly dismissed the writ petition on the

ground that no relief could be given to the

appellant No.1 and the relief prayed for by the

appellant No.2 had already been given to him.

7

11. Mr.  Chhabra  also  attempted  to  justify  the

disparity  in  the  pay  of  Shri  Shori  and  the

appellant No.1 by urging that the appellant No.

1 had been granted the promotional scale with

effect  from  1st January,  1996,  where  the

benefits of increment in the scale were lower.

On the other hand, Shri Shori who joined the

services of the Board in 1974, was granted the

promotional  scale  on  17th May,  2006,  with

effect  from  1st September,  2001,  when  the

increments and the pay-scales were higher.  Mr.

Chhabra submitted that it is the disparity in

the  incremental  benefits  that  led  to  the

anomaly of the appellant No.1 getting a lower

salary in the promotional scale.

12. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf

of  the  respective  parties,  we  have  little

hesitation  in  accepting  Mr.  Gupta’s  submissions

that since the writ petition had been jointly filed

8

on  behalf  of  the  appellants,  whose  interest  was

common,  the  prayer  therein  should  not  have  been

confined to the appellant No.2 alone and that the

High  Court  should  have  granted  relief  to  the

appellant No.1 also by directing that his pay also

be  stepped up to that of  his junior, Shri R.P.

Shori.  Although, this question does not appear to

have  been  gone  into  by  the  High  Court  for  the

simple reason that the writ petition was disposed

of only on the averments contained in paragraph 7

of  the  written  statement  filed  on  behalf  of

respondents  that  the  grievance  of  the  appellant

No.2 duly addressed, there ought to have been at

least some discussion in the judgment of the High

Court regarding the claim of the appellant No.1.

Unfortunately, the case of the appellant No.1 was

not considered at all by the High Court.  

13.  Something  may  be  said  with  regard  to  Mr.

Chhabra’s  submissions  about  the  difference  in

increment in the scales which the appellant No.1

and Shri Shori are placed, but the same is still

9

contrary to the settled principle of law that a

senior  cannot  be  paid  lesser  salary  than  his

junior. In such circumstances, even if, there was a

difference in the incremental benefits in the scale

given to the appellant No.1 and the scale given to

Shri  Shori,  such  anomaly  should  not  have  been

allowed  to  continue  and  ought  to  have  been

rectified so that the pay of the appellant No.1 was

also stepped up to that of Shri Shori, as appears

to  have been done in the  case of the appellant

No.2.

14. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the

High  Court in this regard or  the submissions

made in support thereof by Mr. Chhabra, since

the very object to be achieved is to bring the

pay scale of the appellant No.1 at par with that

of his junior.  We are clearly of the opinion

that  the  reasoning  of  the  High  Court  was

erroneous  and  the  appellant  No.1  was  also

entitled to the same benefits of pay parity with

10

Shri Shori as has been granted to the appellant

No.2.   

15.We, accordingly, allow the appeals and set aside

the judgment of the High Court.  Consequently,

the  writ  petition  is  also  allowed  and  the

respondents are directed to extend the benefits

of pay parity with Shri Shori to the appellant

No.1, as was done in the case of the appellant

No.2.

11

16.  The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid

extent.

17.There will, however, be no order as to costs.

_____________________J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

_____________________J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

New Delhi Dated: 09.01.2009

12