IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5306 OF 2005

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. ... APPELLANTS

VS.

PRANAB KUMAR MOITRA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

The respondent  was appointed  as an  Inspector in  the  

Food and Supplies Department in the year 1972. He was promoted  

to  the  post  of  Chief  Inspector  in  the  Food  and  Supplies  

Department in the year 1985 and his pay was fixed in the scale  

of  425-1050  under  Pay  Scale  11  of  the  Revision  of  Pay  &  

Allowances  Rules  1981(‘ROPA  Rules  1981’  for  short).  He  

approached the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in the year  

1988 praying that Pay Scale 13 (Rs.470-1230) granted to Chief  

Inspectors  in  the  Relief  &  Welfare  Department  should  be  

extended to him. The said petition was disposed of on 7.9.1990  

with a direction to consider his representation.

2. On 12.1.1990, the Govt. of West Bengal, accepting the  

recommendations of the Third Pay Commission, framed the ROPA  

Rules 1990 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1986. The said

rules prescribed the following scales for Food and Supplies  

Department:   

(i) Scale 10 (Rs.1390-2970) for Chief Inspector (Grade I)

(ii) Scale 9 (Rs.1260-2610) for Inspectors (Grade II)

(iii)Scale 6 (Rs.1040-1920) for Sub-Inspectors (Grade III).

The first respondent exercised his option for pay Scale 10 and  

his pay was refixed in the Scale of Rs.1390-2970. It may be  

mentioned  that  ROPA  Rules  1990  merged  Scales  10  and  11  

prevailing till then and renumbered them as ‘Scale 10’.

3. In  the  year  1990,  two  Inspectors  (Abhijit  Kumar  

Samaddar  and  another) in  the  Food  &  Supplies  Department  

approached the High Court (C.O.No.1895 (W) of 1990) seeking the  

benefit of Scale 10 for Inspectors, Food & Supplies. During  

arguments they contended that the Secretary, Finance Department  

had made recommendations to the State government on 9.11.1992  

stating that the Pay Review Committee set up by the department  

for  examining  anomalies  in  the  pay  scales   had  already  

recommended grant of higher scale of 10 for Inspectors, Food &  

Supplies and, therefore, the same should be given to them. Even  

before the government could consider the said recommendation, a  

learned single Judge of the High Court, disposed of their writ  

petition by a short order dated 5.1.1993 extracted below:

“Pursuant  to  the  order  passed  by  this  Court  on  September 13, 1991, the Finance Secretary, Government  of West Bengal has considered the matter and passed an  order  recommending  appropriate  scale  for  the  petitioners.

In view of the said petition, the concerned respondent  authorities are directed to implement the decision of  the Finance Secretary within eight weeks from the date  of communication of this order.

Petitioner will be entitled to consequential benefits  in accordance with law under R.O.P.A. Rules 1981.”

In view of the said order, the State Government made an order  

dated  20.8.1993  granting  the  said  two  writ  petitioners  the  

benefit  of  higher  pay  scale  (Rs.1390-2970)  notionally  from  

1.1.1986, and in effect from 1.1.1988.

4. Another set of 50 Inspectors, Food & Supplies (namely,  

Pinaki Ranjan Gupta and others) also approached the High Court  

in C.O.No.20188 (W) of 1994 for extending them the benefit of  

pay  scale  of  Rs.425-1050  with  effect  from  1.4.1981  on  the  

ground that the two Inspectors were granted such relief. The  

said petition (numbered as TA No.987/1996) on transfer to the  

West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, was allowed on 10.7.1997  

directing that the petitioners therein be given the same scale  

of pay as has been given to  Abhijit Samaddar and another in  

case No. 1895(W)/1990 on the same terms and conditions.  

5. The  Secretary,  Finance  Department  passed  a  reasoned  

order dated 5.9.1994 rejecting the claim of first respondent

for grant of higher pay scale 13, on the ground that Chief  

Inspector in Food & Supplies Department was not equal to Chief  

Inspector in Relief & Welfare Department. The first respondent  

filed  a  writ  petition  (No.3684/1994)  in  the  year  1994  

challenging the order dated 5.9.1994 and praying for grant of  

the higher pay scale for the period 1981-85 when he worked on  

the  post  of  Inspector  (Pay  Scale  No.11  of  ROPA  Rules  1981  

corresponding to Scale 10 of ROPA Rules 1990) and for grant of  

the higher pay scale No.13 of ROPA Rules 1981 corresponding to  

pay scale 12 of ROPA Rules, 1990 for the period when he was  

working on the post of Chief Inspector, Food & Supplies, and  

consequential reliefs. The said writ petition was transferred  

to  the  Tribunal  (and  numbered  as  TA  No.567  of  1997).  The  

Tribunal by order dated 15.9.1997 allowed the said petition  

directing  the  appellants  to  give  the  first  respondent  the  

benefit of Scale 11 of ROPA Rules, 1981 for his tenure in the  

post of Inspector of Food & Supplies with all consequential  

benefits and to consider and fix an appropriate Scale of pay as  

Chief Inspector of Food & Supplies which must be higher than  

the scale of pay of Inspector of Food & Supplies. The said  

order purported to follow its order dated 10.7.1997 passed in  

the case of Pinaki Ranjan Gupta and 49 others which had in turn  

relied upon the decision dated 5.1.1993 in  Abhijit Samaddar  

and another.  The State filed a writ petition challenging the  

order  and  the  Tribunal  and  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High

Court, by a brief order dated 23.6.1998, dismissed the writ  

petition, which is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

6.     The first contention urged by the appellant is that  

the  order  passed  in  the  case  of  Abhijit  Samaddar  and  the  

decision  in  Pinaki  Ranjan  Gupta,  following  the  decision  in  

Abhijit  Samaddar were  erroneous.  It  was  submitted  that  the  

order  in  Abhijit  Samaddar was virtually  a  non-speaking  

premature order directing the appellant to give reliefs on the  

basis of a recommendation of the Finance Secretary, when the  

recommendation was yet to be considered by the Government. It  

is submitted that the recommendation of the Finance Secretary  

was  in  fact  not  accepted  by  the  State  Government.  It  is,  

submitted  neither  the  decision  in  Abhijit  Samaddar  nor  the  

decision in  Pinaki Ranjan Gupta (that followed in  Abhijit  

Samaddar) considered the issue raised on merits. On the other  

hand, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that  

the decision in  Pinaki Ranjan Gupta attained finality as the  

appeal filed against the said decision was dismissed by this  

court. We however find that while dismissing the state’s appeal  

in the case of Pinaki Ranjan Gupta (CA No.4791/2004 decided on  

18.3.2004), this court had specifically left open the question  

of law to be decided in an appropriate case. In this context we  

may also refer to the decision in Col.B.J. Akkara vs. Govt.of  

India [2006 (11) SCC 709] wherein this court had reiterated the

following well-settled position:  

“A particular judgment of the High Court may not be  challenged  by  the  State  where  the  financial  repercussions  are negligible  or where  the appeal  is  barred by limitation. It may also not be challenged due  to negligence or oversight of the dealing officers or  on account of wrong legal advice, or on account of the  non-comprehension of the seriousness or magnitude of  the  issue  involved.  However,  when  similar  matters  subsequently crop up and the magnitude of the financial  implications is realized, the State is not prevented or  barred  from  challenging  the  subsequent  decisions  or  resisting  subsequent  writ  petitions,  even  though  judgment in a case involving similar issue was allowed  to reach finality in the case of others.”

The decision of High Court in Abhijit Samaddar was not rendered  

on merits but solely on the ground that Finance Secretary had  

passed an order dated 9.11.1992 recommending higher pay scale  

No.10  (Rs.1390-2970)  for  Inspectors,  Food  &  Supplies  and  

therefore the writ petitioners therein were entitled to relief  

in terms of the said recommendations. But the said order being  

only  a  recommendation  to  the  Finance  Minister,  was  not  

enforceable until it was accepted and a Government order was  

issued in terms of the decisions of the Government. The High  

Court  prematurely  directed  relief  merely  based  on  a  

recommendation, which obviously is erroneous. As a consequence  

the decision of the High Court in Pinaki Ranjan Gupta is also  

erroneous. Be that as it may.

7. It may not be necessary to go into that aspect any  

further, in view of another reason. It is not in dispute that

in the cases of Abhijit Samaddar and Pinaki Ranjan Gupta which  

was followed by the Tribunal in this case, government servants  

in the post of Inspectors, Food & Supplies were granted the  

higher pay scale No.10 (Rs.1390-2970) notionally with effect  

from 1.1.1986 and actual with effect from 1.1.1988. In this  

case, the first respondent was promoted as Chief Inspector in  

the year 1985 itself and he was not an Inspector on or from  

1.1.1986. Therefore, the question of any relief being granted  

to him on the basis of the decision in  Abhijit Samaddar  or  

Pinaki Ranjan Gupta  does not arise, as those cases granted  

relief to Inspectors only from 1.1.1986. The first respondent's  

prayer that he should be given a higher pay scale when he was  

an Inspector for the period 1981 to 1985 cannot be accepted as  

such relief was not granted in the case of Pinaki Ranjan Gupta  

which was followed by the Tribunal. Therefore, obviously, the  

first respondent was not entitled to any relief in regard to  

the period that he was working as Inspector. Insofar as the pay  

scale  for  the  post  of  Chief  Inspector,  there  is  no  

recommendation either by the Pay Commission or by the Anomalies  

Review Committee or otherwise nor any acceptance thereof by the  

State Government for revising the applicable pay scale or to  

equate the posts of Chief Inspector, Food & supplies with the  

post of Chief Inspector, Relief & Welfare Department. The first  

respondent cannot, therefore, have any grievance in regard to  

pay scale that was extended to him as Chief Inspector.

8. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order  

of the High Court and Tribunal and dismiss the application for  

relief.

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

  ......................J. ( A.K. PATNAIK )

New Delhi; December 09, 2010.