IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5056 OF 2002

SAHIB SINGH .......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5057 OF 2002

O R D E R

The appellants in these two appeals were working as Turner and Electrician

respectively in the office of Executive Engineer, Satluj Yamuna Link Project, Irrigation

Department of the Government of Haryana.  In the year 1997, the pay scale applied to

them was  Rs.950-1500.   The appellants  gave representations to  the  department for

revision of pay scales from Rs.950-1500 to Rs.1200-2040 on the ground that turners and

electricians  in  the  Transport  Department  and  other  departments  of  the   State

Government  had  been  extended  the  benefit  of  pay  scale  of  Rs.1200-2040.   After

considering  their  representations,  the  Executive  Engineer,  by  office  order  dated

22.4.1997, informed the appellants that their pay was refixed in the higher pay scale of

Rs.1200-2040, subject to verification by the Accounts Officer.  In pursuance of it, the

appellants were paid the refixed salary in the increased pay scale with effect from April

1997.   

.........2.

- 2 -

2. When the matter was  referred  to the Accounts Officer,  he pointed out that

the Executive Engineer had no authority to extend the benefit of higher pay scale to the

apellants.  Consequently, the Executive Engineer, by order dated 12.12.2000, withdrew

the higher pay scale and directed recovery of the excess salary paid.  As the said order

was passed without issuing a show-cause notice, subsequently a show-cause notice dated

16.1.2001 was issued to the appellants.  The said show-cause notice gave the reason for

withdrawal.   It  stated  that  the  functions  of  turners,  fitters  and  electricians  in  the

Transport  Department  were  different  from  the  functions  of  turners,  fitters  and

electricians in the Irrigation Department and, therefore, the pay scales applicable to

turners, fitters and electricians in the Transport Department could not be extended to

the appellants.

3. Feeling aggrieved,  the appellants approached the Punjab & Haryana High

Court.  Their writ petitions were rejected by the High Court by orders dated 17.5.2001.

The said orders are under challenge.

4. We have considered the rival submissions.  The contention of the appellants is

that except the Irrigation Department all other departments in the State have extended

the higher pay scales of Rs.1200-2040 to  turners, fitters and  

........3.

- 3 -

electricians and there was no reason why  the said pay scale should not be extended to

them.   It  is  also  contended  that  their  representations  for  higher  pay  scale  were

considered and accepted by the department and they had been paid salary in the higher

pay  scale  from  1997  to  2000.   They  submit  that  there  was  no  justification  for

withdrawing the higher pay scale.  The respondents, on the other hand, have pointed out

that the extension of  benefit  of  higher pay scale was contrary to  the rules; that the

Executive Engineer had no authority to give a higher pay scale; that at all events, the

order  was  provisional  and  subject  to  acceptance,  verification  and  approval  by  the

Accounts  Officer;  that  the  Accounts  Officer  did  not  approve  the  same;  and  that

therefore the  Executive Engineer who  had  issued  the  order earlier was  justified  in

withdrawing the same.  

5. As rightly contended by the respondents, merely because the turners, fitters

and electricians in some other departments were given the benefit of higher pay scale, it

is  not  possible  to  hold  that the persons  holding posts  of  similar description in the

Irrigation  Department  should  also  be  extended  the  benefit  of  higher  pay  scale.

Admittedly, there has been no equation of the posts of turners, fitters and electricians in

the Irrigation Department to  the  posts  of  turners,  fitters  and electricians  in other

departments.   The  

........4.

- 4 -

respondents  have contended  that the qualifications,  functions and duties  of  turners,

fitters  and  electricians  in  the  Irrigation  Department  were  different  from  the

qualifications,  functions  and  duties  of  turners,  fitters  and  electricians  in  other

departments.  Further revision of pay scales or extension of higher pay scale could not be

directed or ordered by the Executive Engineer.  It  is a matter of policy where State

Government has to take the decision.

6. In the circumstances, we find no reasons to interfere with the order of the

High Court.  We,  however, make it clear that insofar as the excess amount paid between

1997 and 2000, the same shall not be recovered as the payment was not on account of

misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the appellants concerned and the department

had paid the said excess amounts being bonafide under the impression that they were

entitled to such higher pay scales.   

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant Sahib Singh

in C.A. No. 5056/2002 has retired, but his retirement benefits have been withheld in view

of the pendency of his appeal in this Court.  If so, the State Government shall release the

same without any delay in accordance with law.

........5.

- 5 -

8. Subject to the said modifications, the appeals are disposed of.  

  ...........................J.    ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;    ...........................J. October 15, 2008.           ( DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA )