http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: GABRIEL SAVER FERNANDES

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/09/1993

BENCH: (K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Leave granted. 2.   It  is  contended for the appellants that  as  per  the directions,  issued by the High Court in Writ  Petition  No. 1173 of 1962, dated 4-3-1965, the High Court had struck down the  rules  holding  that there cannot  be  any  distinction between the Talatis and Village Accountants.  They cannot be clubbed  together and they constitute  different  categories and that, therefore, they are entitled to separate scales of pay.   When  they claimed the scale of pay on the  basis  of revised  pay scales at Rs 90-200 instead of Rs  80-145,  the Tribunal  has  committed illegality in not  considering  the distinction  and  that  therefore, the  appellants  are  not entitled to the benefit of the payment of scale of pay of Rs 90-200 as per 1970 Rules w.e.f. 1-1-1970. 3.   It would appear that the Government made a  distinction between  Talatis and Village Accountants who possessed  SSLC qualification  and those who are non-SSLC  candidates.   For the candidates who are having SSLC qualification, pay  scale of  Rs  90-200  has  been  provided  for.   Admittedly,  the appellants  are  not in that category as they  are  non-SSLC candidates.  The Government, therefore, thought it expedient to  make  a distinction between  qualified  and  unqualified persons  and prescribed different scales of pay.  Hence,  we do  not find any invidious discrimination made  between  the two categories to club together and grant them same scale of pay  of  Rs  90-200.  However,  since  the  appellants  have already  been paid the scale of pay of Rs 90-200 while  they were in service and are retired now, it would be appropriate that  the  Government may not recover from them  the  salary which they had already received though they are not eligible to the scale of pay of Rs 90-200. 4.   The appeals are accordingly dismissed.  No costs.