# P. SINGARAVELAN & ORS. ETC. ETC v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPPUR AND DT & ORS. ETC. ETC

- **Citation:** [2019] 15 S.C.R. 408
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-12-18
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 9533-9537 of 2019
- **Bench:** Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Krishna Murari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/p-singaravelan-ors-etc-etc-v-the-district-collector-tiruppur-and-dt-ors-etc-etc-33385
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

Service Law: Pay-scales - Claim of - Selection Grade and
Special Grade of pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000
respectively in terms of GOMs 162 - Grant of said pay scales to
around 3000 drivers by various decisions rendered by the High
Court and this Court - Appellants-drivers in various departments
of Government of Tamil Nadu, claiming parity - High Court
rejected the claim of the appellants - On appeal, held: Person
cannot invoke Art. 14 to claim a benefit extended to someone
similarly placed if he is not lawfully entitled to such benefit in the
first place - Art. 14 embodies the concept of positive equality alone,
and not negative equality - On facts, apart from claiming parity
with similarly placed individuals, the appellants unable to justify
their entitlement to the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay
scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 - However, on
perusing the series of revisions made to the pay scales applicable
to drivers employed with the State Government, the applicable pay
scales for the Selection Grade and Special Grade would be Rs.
4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively - Thus, appellants not
lawfully entitled to the claim Selection Grade and Special Grade
pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively, solely
on the strength of earlier decisions of the High Court - Interference
with the order of the High Court not called for - Constitution of
India - Art. 14.
Constitution of India: Art. 14 - Equality - Relief on the
strength of Art. 14 - Claim of - Held: A person cannot invoke Art.
14 to claim a benefit extended to someone similarly placed if he is
not lawfully entitled to such benefit in the first place - Article 14
embodies the concept of positive equality alone, and not negative
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 408
408
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
409
equality - Art. 14 cannot be relied upon to perpetuate an illegality
or irregularity - Thus, the jurisdiction of a higher court cannot
be invoked on the basis of a wrong order passed by a lower forum.
Judgments/orders: Non-speaking order - Effect of - Held:
All the orders passed by this Court were non-speaking orders,
inasmuch as they were confined to a mere refusal to grant special
leave to appeal to the petitioners therein - Dismissal of an SLP
against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation
of the same - If such an order of this Court is non-speaking, it
does not constitute a declaration of law u/Art. 141 of the
Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger.
Judicial Discipline: Adjudication of proceedings by the High
Court - Parameters to be followed - High Court differed from the
view taken previously by a coordinate Bench based on a
misreading of the same - Held: In such a situation the High Court
should not have proceeded to decide the matter by itself - In the
interest of judicial discipline, the High Court should instead have
referred the matter to larger Bench for its consideration -
Reference to larger Bench.
Partly allowing Civil Appeals @ SLPs [Diary No. 42301/
2017] and dismissing all the other appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is evident that all the orders passed by this
Court were non-speaking orders, inasmuch as they were confined
to a mere refusal to grant special leave to appeal to the
petitioners therein. It is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLP
against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an
affirmation of the same. If such an order of this Court is nonspeaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law under Article
141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger. [Para
7] [415-H; 416-A-B]
1.2 The Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 and the
Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 both set aside the
order dated 01.10.2007 based on the fact that the claimed higher
pay scales had already been granted and were still being
received by certain other drivers in several government
P. SINGARAVELAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
TIRUPPUR AND DT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
410
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15

## Text

_Characters 0–39,879 of 43,402. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39879 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
P. SINGARAVELAN & ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPPUR
AND DT & ORS. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9533-9537 of 2019)
DECEMBER 18, 2019
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
KRISHNA MURARI. JJ.]
Service Law: Pay-scales - Claim of - Selection Grade and
Special Grade of pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000
respectively in terms of GOMs 162 - Grant of said pay scales to
around 3000 drivers by various decisions rendered by the High
Court and this Court - Appellants-drivers in various departments
of Government of Tamil Nadu, claiming parity - High Court
rejected the claim of the appellants - On appeal, held: Person
cannot invoke Art. 14 to claim a benefit extended to someone
similarly placed if he is not lawfully entitled to such benefit in the
first place - Art. 14 embodies the concept of positive equality alone,
and not negative equality - On facts, apart from claiming parity
with similarly placed individuals, the appellants unable to justify
their entitlement to the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay
scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 - However, on
perusing the series of revisions made to the pay scales applicable
to drivers employed with the State Government, the applicable pay
scales for the Selection Grade and Special Grade would be Rs.
4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively - Thus, appellants not
lawfully entitled to the claim Selection Grade and Special Grade
pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively, solely
on the strength of earlier decisions of the High Court - Interference
with the order of the High Court not called for - Constitution of
India - Art. 14.
Constitution of India: Art. 14 - Equality - Relief on the
strength of Art. 14 - Claim of - Held: A person cannot invoke Art.
14 to claim a benefit extended to someone similarly placed if he is
not lawfully entitled to such benefit in the first place - Article 14
embodies the concept of positive equality alone, and not negative
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 408
408
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
409
equality - Art. 14 cannot be relied upon to perpetuate an illegality
or irregularity - Thus, the jurisdiction of a higher court cannot
be invoked on the basis of a wrong order passed by a lower forum.
Judgments/orders: Non-speaking order - Effect of - Held:
All the orders passed by this Court were non-speaking orders,
inasmuch as they were confined to a mere refusal to grant special
leave to appeal to the petitioners therein - Dismissal of an SLP
against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation
of the same - If such an order of this Court is non-speaking, it
does not constitute a declaration of law u/Art. 141 of the
Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger.
Judicial Discipline: Adjudication of proceedings by the High
Court - Parameters to be followed - High Court differed from the
view taken previously by a coordinate Bench based on a
misreading of the same - Held: In such a situation the High Court
should not have proceeded to decide the matter by itself - In the
interest of judicial discipline, the High Court should instead have
referred the matter to larger Bench for its consideration -
Reference to larger Bench.
Partly allowing Civil Appeals @ SLPs [Diary No. 42301/
2017] and dismissing all the other appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is evident that all the orders passed by this
Court were non-speaking orders, inasmuch as they were confined
to a mere refusal to grant special leave to appeal to the
petitioners therein. It is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLP
against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an
affirmation of the same. If such an order of this Court is nonspeaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law under Article
141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger. [Para
7] [415-H; 416-A-B]
1.2 The Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 and the
Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 both set aside the
order dated 01.10.2007 based on the fact that the claimed higher
pay scales had already been granted and were still being
received by certain other drivers in several government
P. SINGARAVELAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
TIRUPPUR AND DT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
410
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
departments, as per G.O. Ms. No. 162. Further, and more
importantly, it was held that the letter dated 31.12.1998 wherein
such higher pay scale fixations were deemed to be erroneous,
would not have the effect of reducing the entitlement of drivers,
as such a letter could not act as a substitute for modification of
the G.O. itself. Thus, even though the Court did not give any
express direction to grant the higher pay scales as per Serial
No. 8 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules, the same was implicit in
the Court's directions for fixing the pay scales in terms of G.O.
Ms. No. 162. In other words, it cannot be said that the High
Court in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 did not affirm the drivers' claim
that they were entitled to the higher Selection and Special Grade
pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively.
However, in the impugned judgment, the High Court only
focused on the fact that the conclusion reached by the coordinate
Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 was for appropriate fixation
of pay scales under G.O. Ms. No. 162 only, and there was no
specific direction for grant of the Selection Grade and Special
Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000
respectively. On this basis, the High Court proceeded to
determine the question of pay scale entitlement and took a view
diametrically opposite to that of the coordinate Bench in W.A.
Nos. 383-391/2009, finding that the Appellant-drivers were only
entitled to the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of
Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively. Such an approach
is based on a narrow reading of the decision of the coordinate
Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, as it fails to appreciate the
implicit direction in this order to grant the higher pay scales to
the drivers. Thus, it appears that the High Court differed from
the view taken previously by a coordinate Bench based on a
misreading of the same. In such a situation, once it was found
by the High Court that it was in disagreement with the holding
of its coordinate Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, it should not
have proceeded to decide the matter by itself, and in the interest
of judicial discipline, should instead have referred the matter to
a larger Bench for its consideration. Be that as it may, in the
interest of expeditious disposal of the matter, it is not fit to
remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration at
this stage. [Para 18.1, 18.2, 19] [422-B-H; 423-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
411
1.3 Apart from claiming parity with similarly placed
individuals, the appellants have been unable to justify how and
why they are entitled to the Selection Grade and Special Grade
pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 as specified in
Serial No. 8 of Schedule II to the 1998 Rules, in terms of G.O.
Ms. No. 162. On the other hand, on perusing the series of
revisions made to the pay scales applicable to drivers employed
with the State Government, the applicable pay scales for the
Selection Grade and Special Grade would be as per Serial No. 6
of Schedule II to the 1998 Rules, i.e. Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs.
4300-6000 respectively. [Para 20] [423-C-D]
1.4 The pay scales of the appellants can be traced back to
G.O. Ms. No. 666, Finance dated 27.06.1989, by which the State
Government issued the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay
Rules, 1989, implementing the recommendations of the Vth Tamil
Nadu Pay Commission. Under these rules, the original and
revised pay scales of 30 common categories of posts were
specified. The scale of pay for drivers was mentioned at Serial
No. 11 in the first part of the Schedule to these rules, having
been revised from Rs. 610-1075 to Rs. 950-1500. The next
revision came through G.O. Ms. No. 818, Finance, dated
09.09.1989, whereby drivers' pay scale was increased to Rs. 9751660. Later, under G.O. Ms. No. 304, Finance dated 28.03.1990,
Special Grade and Selection Grade scales of pay were introduced
for persons who had completed 10 years and 20 years of service
respectively. For the post of drivers carrying the Ordinary Grade
pay scale of Rs. 975-1660, the Selection and Special Grade
brackets were set as Rs. 1200-2040 and Rs. 1320-2040
respectively. Finally, when the 1998 Rules were introduced
through G.O. Ms. No. 162, the post-wise determination of pay
scales was replaced by a pay scale-to-pay scale basis
determination. As already seen in Schedule I of the said rules,
the pay scale of Rs. 975-1660 applicable to drivers was revised
to Rs. 3200-4900. For this, the corresponding Selection and
Special Grades specified in Schedule II were Rs. 4000-6000 and
Rs. 4300-6000 respectively. [Para 20.1-20.3] [423-D-H; 424-A]
1.5 There is substance in the submission of the
respondents that the appellants are not lawfully entitled to the
P. SINGARAVELAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
TIRUPPUR AND DT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
412
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
claimed Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs.
5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively in terms of G.O. Ms.
No. 162. [Para 21] [424-B]
1.6 The High Court in the impugned judgment was correct
in concluding that the appellants cannot claim such relief on the
strength of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, when once it
has been found that they are not lawfully entitled to the same.
It is well-settled by now that a person cannot invoke Article 14
to claim a benefit extended to someone similarly placed if he is
not lawfully entitled to such benefit in the first place. Article 14
embodies the concept of positive equality alone, and not negative
equality, that is to say, it cannot be relied upon to perpetuate an
illegality or irregularity. In fact, this Court has opined that this
principle extends to orders passed by judicial fora as well. Thus,
the jurisdiction of a higher court cannot be invoked on the basis
of a wrong order passed by a lower forum. [Para 23] [424-D-E]
Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC
81 : [2013] 8 SCR 227 ; State of Odisha v. Anup
Kumar Senapati (2019) 12 SCALE 386 - referred to.
1.7 The appellants cannot claim the Selection Grade and
Special Grade scales of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000
respectively, solely on the strength of earlier decisions of the
High Court, without showing how they, themselves, are entitled
to such benefit in the first place. In such a situation, the
appellants can only be granted the benefit of the Selection Grade
and Special Grade scales of pay to which they are lawfully entitled
in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162, i.e. Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 43006000 respectively. There is no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment. [Para 24, 25] [424-D-F]
2. As regards Civil Appeals @ SLPs [Diary No. 42301/
2017], the drivers concerned were not entitled to any
promotional avenues. Thus, it is evident that the High Court
rightly concluded that the drivers were entitled to the full
benefits of the appropriate pay scale under Schedule II of the
1998 Rules. However, in light of the finding that persons
employed in the post of drivers in various departments in the
Government of Tamil Nadu are only entitled to Ordinary,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
413
Selection and Special Grade pay scales in terms of Serial No. 6
of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules, i.e. at Rs. 3200-4900, Rs. 40006000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively, there is no hesitation to
hold that the High Court erred in directing fixation of such pay
scales to drivers employed at the High Court in terms of Serial
No. 8 of the Schedule II, fixing Selection Grade and Special
Grade scales of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000
respectively. The State Government is directed to fix the pay
scale benefits available to the Respondents in the instant appeals
in terms of Serial No. 6 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules under
G.O. Ms. No. 162 [Para 5, 6] [426-E-G]
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359 ;
Khoday Distilleries v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara
Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. (2019) 4 SCC 376 - referred
to.
CASE LAW REFERENCE
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538
referred to
Para 7
[2019] 3 SCR 411
referred to
Para 7
[2013] 8 SCR 227
referred to
Para 22
(2019) 12 SCALE 386
referred to
Para 23
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 95339537 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.07.2015 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. Nos. 2073, 1605, 30359, 33869
and 291 of 2013.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 9538-9546, 9547-9549, 9551-9559, 9560-9561
of 2019.
Vijay Narayan, Adv. Gen., Balaji Srinivasan, AAG,
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, K.N. Basha, Sr. Advs., Ms. Garima
Jain, C. Vigneswaran, T. R. B. Sivakumar, M. Ravi, Joseph Aristotle,
Ms. Priya Aristotle, Ms. Sneha, Chinmay Deshpande, B. Karunakaran,
Nikhil Swami, Ms. A. Jaswanthi, Ms. Purbitaa Mitra, K. V.
Vijayakumar, S. Gowthaman, Vinodh Kanna B., Lenin Rajasehar,
P. SINGARAVELAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
TIRUPPUR AND DT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
414
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
M. Yogesh Kanna, S. Raja Rajeshwaran, B. Balaji,
A. Lakshminarayanan, Gautam Narayan, Ms. Asmita Singh, Adithya
Nair, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5395-5399 OF
2016;
CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5605-5613 OF
2016;
CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5391-5393 OF
2016, AND
CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5367-5375 OF
2016
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been filed against the common final
judgment and order dated 08.07.2015 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Madras allowing writ appeals filed by the Respondents
herein, being state authorities, and dismissing writ petitions filed by the
Appellants herein, being drivers in various departments of the
Government of Tamil Nadu, with respect to the Selection Grade and
Special Grade scales of pay applicable to them.
3. The Appellants, in a nutshell, are claiming the grant of Selection
Grade and Special Grade scales of pay in the bracket of Rs. 50008000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162,
Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 (for short "G.O. Ms.
No. 162"), which has been granted to around 3000 similarly placed
employees. The Appellants place reliance on various decisions rendered
by this Court and the High Court of Madras in several writ petitions
and appeals granting similar pay scales to the petitioners therein. Thus,
it is argued that the impugned judgment of the High Court has
erroneously differed from the consistent view taken in these decisions.
4. On the other hand, the Respondents argue in favour of the
impugned judgment, claiming that the initial grant of the claimed pay
scale to some drivers (out of which the entire cluster of litigations arose)
was merely on account of an error on the part of officials in some
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
415
government departments. Thus, it is submitted that the applicable scales
of pay are Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively for the
Selection Grade and Special Grade.
5. It has come to our attention that several Benches of this Court
have dismissed SLPs against decisions of the High Court fixing pay
scales of the concerned drivers therein at Rs. 5000-8000 for the
Selection Grade and Rs. 5500-9000 for the Special Grade in terms of
G. O. Ms. No. 162. We deem it fit to refer to the orders passed by this
Court in this respect:
WA No. 67 of 2012
SLP (Civil) CC No.
14715 of 2012
Dismissed on 10.09.2012
WA No. 383 of 2009
SLP (Civil) No. 35969
of 2009
Dismissed on 25.02.2015
WA No. 391 of 2009
SLP (Civil) No. 6522
of 2010
Dismissed on 25.02.2015
WA No. 382 to 388 of 2009
SLP (Civil) No. 65236530 of 2010
Dismissed on 25.02.2015
WP No. 462 of 2012
WP No. 24912 of 2010
WA No. 383-391 of 2009
SLP (Civil) No. 22491
of 2012
Dismissed on 25.02.2015
WP -29119- 2012
SLP (Civil) No. 33037
of 2013
Dismissed on 25.02.2015
WA No. 791 and 792 of 2013
WP No. 2929 and 2930 of 2012
SLP (Civil) No. 33588
of 2013
Dismissed on 25.02.2015
WA No. 130, 131, 132 of 2011
SLP (Civil) CC No.
12886-12888 of 2013
Dismissed on 19.07.2013
WA No. 2243 of 2012
SLP (Civil) CC No. 6602
of 2013
Dismissed on 27.09.2013
WA No. 526 of 2013
SLP (Civil) CC No.
14007 of 2013
Dismissed on 21.08.2013
WA No. 24899 of 2014
SLP (Civil) No. 34265
of 2014
Dismissed on 06.02.2017
6. Be that as it may, it must be noted that all the above orders
of this Court were passed at the stage of admission itself. Even the
order dated 25.02.2015, passed by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court while
dealing with a batch of appeals having SLP (C) No. 35969/2009 as the
lead matter, stated as follows:
"UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
Dismissed."
7. It is evident that all the above orders were non-speaking
orders, inasmuch as they were confined to a mere refusal to grant
P. SINGARAVELAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
TIRUPPUR AND DT [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
416
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
special leave to appeal to the petitioners therein. At this juncture, it is
useful to recall that it is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLP against
an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of the same.
If such an order of this Court is non-speaking, it does not constitute a
declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, or attract the
doctrine of merger. The following discussion on this proposition in
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, is relevant in
this regard:
"(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order
passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior
forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the
decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate
forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the
latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of
enforcement in the eye of law.
(ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution
is divisible into two stages. The first stage is upto the disposal of
prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The second stage
commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and the
special leave petition is converted into an appeal.
(iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or
unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction
exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter
of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative
of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be
capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue
before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court
may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order
appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not
while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition
for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore
be applied to the former and not to the latter.
(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a nonspeaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract
the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal
does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge.
All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise
its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
417
(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order i.e.
gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has
two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the
order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the
meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than
the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the
findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the
parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any
proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the
Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this
does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or
authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme
Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the
Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in
subsequent proceedings between the parties.
(vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been invoked the order
passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order
may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation.
(vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking
leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before the
Supreme Court the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a
review petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub-rule (1) of
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC."
(emphasis added)
This view has also been adopted in a plethora of decisions of
this Court, including the recent decision in Khoday Distilleries v. Sri
Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC
376.
8. Applying these observations to the present case, it is clear that
there has been no pronouncement by this Court constituting the law of
the land as to the interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 162. In such a situation,
it is open for us to proceed to decide the instant appeals uninfluenced
by the prior orders of this Court dismissing SLPs against the grant of
relief to drivers placed similarly as the Appellants herein.
9. It is evident that the entire controversy in this case hinges on
the interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 162. Vide this order, the Tamil Nadu
P. SINGARAVELAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
TIRUPPUR AND DT [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
418
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 (for short "the 1998 Rules") were
notified, revising 25 standard pay scales on a pay scale-to-pay scale
basis for State Government employees and teachers. While Schedule
I to the 1998 Rules indicated the revised pay scales, Schedule II specified
the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales applicable for each
revised Ordinary Grade. Further, it was stated in paragraph 4 of the
G.O. that for posts with no promotional avenues, the Selection Grade
and Special Grade scales as indicated in Schedule II would be
applicable.
10. It is not in dispute that drivers in various departments of the
Government of Tamil Nadu were entitled to revised Ordinary Grade
pay scales as per Schedule I. Further, since they did not have any
promotional avenues, Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales
under Schedule II would become applicable as and when they completed
10 and 20 years of service respectively. The dispute here lies with
respect to the entries under Schedules I and II applicable to the post
of drivers. It is the submission of the Respondents that prior to the
revision of pay scales under the 1998 Rules, drivers were entitled to
the pay scale of Rs. 975-1660 as determined by G.O. No. 818, Finance,
dated 09.09.1989. Accordingly, the corresponding revised Ordinary
Grade pay scale under Schedule I of the 1998 Rules would be as per
Entry No. XX below:
SCHEDULE -I
LIST OF PAY SCALES
Group
(1)
Existing Scale
(2)
Revised Scale
(3)

Rs.
Rs.
I
5500-200-6500
17400-500-21900
II
5100-150-5700
16400-450-20000
III
4500-150-5700
15000-400-18600
IV
4100-125-4850-150-5300
14300-400-18300
V
3950-125-4700-150-5000
12750-375-16500
VI
3700-125-4700-150-5000
12000-375-16500
VII
3000-100-3500-125-4500
10000-325-15200
VIII
2500-75-2800-100-4200
9100-275-14050
IX
2200-75-2800-100-4000
8000-275-13500
X
2000-60-2300-75-3200-100-3500
6500-200-11100
XI
2000-60-2300-75-3200
6500-200-10500
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
419
(emphasis added)
11. Relying on this, the Respondents submit that the drivers are
entitled to a revised Ordinary Grade pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900 only.
As regards the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales
applicable, the Respondents claim that the Appellants are entitled to pay
scales of Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively as per Serial
No. 6 of Schedule II, which is corresponding to Entry No. XX of
Schedule I. On the other hand, the Appellants claim that they are entitled
to the revised Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs.
5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively as per Serial No. 8 of
Schedule II. It would be useful to refer to Schedule II in this regard:
SCHEDULE - II
REVISED SELECTION GRADE AND SPECIAL GRADE
SCALE OF PAY
XII
1820-60-2300-75-3200
5900-200-9900
XIII
1640-60-2600-75-2900
5500-175-9000
XIV
1600-50-2300-60-2660
5300-150-8300
XV
1400-40-1600-50-2300-60-2600
5000-150-8000
XVI
1350-30-1440-40-1800-50-2200
4500-125-7000
XVII
1320-30-1560-40-2040
4300-100-6000
XVIII
1200-30-1560-40-2040
4000-100-6000
XIX
1100-25-1150-30-1660
3625-85-4900
XX
975-25-1150-30-1660
3200-85-4900
XXI
950-20-1150-25-1500
3050-75-3950-80-4590
XXII
825-15-900-20-1200
2750-70-3800-75-4400
XXIII
800-15-1010-20-1150
2650-65-3300-70-4000
XXIV
775-12-835-15-1030
2610-60-3150-65-3540
XXV
750-12-870-15-945
2550-55-2660-60-3200
Sl.
Nos.
(1)
Ordinary Grade (2)
Selection Grade
(3)
Special Grade
(4)

Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
1
2550-55-2660-60-3200
2650-65-3300-70-4000
2750-70-3800-75-4400
2
2610-60-3150-65-3540
2750-70-3800-75-4400
3050-75-3950-80-4590
3
2650-65-3300-70-4000
3050-75-3950-80-4590
3200-85-4900
4
2750-70-3800-75-4400
3050-75-3950-80-4590
3200-85-4900
5
3050-75-3950-80-4590
4000-100-6000
4300-100-6000
6
3200-85-4900
4000-100-6000
4300-100-6000
7
3625-85-4900
4300-100-6000
4500-125-7000
8
4000-100-6000
5000-150-8000
5500-175-9000
P. SINGARAVELAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
TIRUPPUR AND DT [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
420
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
(emphasis added)
12. Indeed, the genesis of the entire dispute lies in the fixation
of Selection and Special Grade pay scales of certain drivers by certain
local departments as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule II. Pursuant to this,
the Joint Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, issued
Letter No. 96900/PC/98-2 dated 31.12.1998 to all Secretaries to the
Government and Heads of Department, on the basis that such fixations
were erroneous and needed to be reviewed, with a direction to effect
recoveries wherever excess payments had been made.
13. In 2006, the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms
(E) Department rejected the representation of the Tamil Nadu
Government Department Drivers' Central Association seeking fixation
of Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales at Rs. 5000-8000 and
Rs. 5500-9000 respectively, vide the proceedings in Lr. No. 13921/K/
2005-1 dated 25.04.2006. This was challenged by the drivers'
association before the High Court in W.P. No. 34800 of 2006, which
was allowed on the ground that the said proceedings did not refer to
G.O. Ms. No. 162. The association was directed to make a fresh
representation before the Finance Department, to be decided in
accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 162.
14. Such representation, however, was also rejected by the
Finance Department vide letter No. 63685/CMPC/2006-1, dated
01.10.2007, which states as follows:
"3. Therefore, the Drivers are entitled for the Selection Grade /
Special Grade scales of pay as ordered in Schedule-II of G.O.
Ms. No. 162, Finance (PC) Department, dated 13-4-98, based
on the ordinary grade scale of pay granted to the posts of
Drivers. As such all categories on par with Drivers in the Ordinary
Grade of Rs.3200-4900 are entitled for the Selection Grade of
9
4300-100-6000
5000-150-8000
5500-175-9000
10
4500-125-7000
5300-150-8300
5900-200-9900
11
5000-150-8000
5500-175-9000
6500-200-10500
12
5300-150-8300
6500-200-10500
8000-275-13500
13
5500-175-9000
6500-200-10500
8000-275-13500
14
5900-200-9900
8000-275-13500
9100-275-14050
15
6500-200-10500
8000-275-13500
9100-275-14050
16
6500-200-11100
9100-275-14050
10000-325-15200
17
8000-275-13500
9100-275-14050
10000-325-15200
18
9100-275-14050
10000-325-15200
12000-375-16500
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
421
Rs.4000-6000 and Special Grade of Rs.4300-6000 respectively.
The above Government Order has been issued based on the
recommendations of the Official Committee, 1998 and the
Drivers are not denied the benefits ordered in the Government
Order cited. Hence, your request has no merit to consider as
requested."
15. A batch of writ petitions challenging the above order was
subsequently filed before the High Court. These writ petitions were
allowed by the High Court vide judgment dated 30.09.2008 in W.P. No.
4288/2008 and connected matters thereto, with a direction for the
fixation of pay scales in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 162. This was
affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment dated
01.09.2009 in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009.
16. Subsequently, several other writ petitions were filed by other
similarly situated drivers seeking the benefit of the same higher pay
scale. These petitions were also allowed on the basis of the previous
decisions discussed above, with the notable exceptions of the judgment
dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in W.P.
No. 1418/2001 and matters connected thereto, and the impugned
judgment herein.
17. Concluding that the drivers were not entitled to the higher
claimed pay scales, these two judgments differed from the consistent
view taken in the preceding judgments and orders based on a scrutiny
of G.O. Ms. No. 162 and the prior history of pay scales payable to the
drivers. They justified differing from the decisions of the Division
Benches of the High Court on the premise that there was no specific
direction by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 (supra),
or the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, granting the Selection
Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 55009000 respectively. With respect to subsequent writ petitions granting
these higher pay scales, it was noted that they had been disposed of at
the admission stage itself (in some cases even without notice to the
government) and could thus be disregarded.
18. Given this departure in the impugned judgment from the
consistent view taken by prior coordinate Benches of the High Court,
it is necessary to ascertain whether the High Court should have instead
referred the matter to a larger Bench for consideration. This merits a
closer reading of the decisions of the Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/
2008 (supra) and of the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009.
P. SINGARAVELAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
TIRUPPUR AND DT [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
422
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
As discussed above, the principal issue before the Courts in these
decisions was the validity of the order dated 01.10.2007 passed by the
Finance Department rejecting the claim of the drivers' association for
Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and
Rs. 5500-9000 respectively.
18.1 The Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 (supra) and the
Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 both set aside the order
dated 01.10.2007 based on the fact that the claimed higher pay scales
had already been granted and were still being received by certain other
drivers in several government departments, as per G.O. Ms. No. 162.
Further, and more importantly, it was held that the letter dated
31.12.1998 wherein such higher pay scale fixations were deemed to
be erroneous, would not have the effect of reducing the entitlement of
drivers, as such a letter could not act as a substitute for modification
of the G.O. itself. Thus, even though the Court did not give any express
direction to grant the higher pay scales as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule
II of the 1998 Rules, we find that the same was implicit in the Court's
directions for fixing the pay scales in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162. In
other words, it cannot be said that the High Court in W.A. Nos. 383391/2009 did not affirm the drivers' claim that they were entitled to
the higher Selection and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000
and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively.
18.2 However, in the impugned judgment, the High Court only
focused on the fact that the conclusion reached by the coordinate Bench
in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 was for appropriate fixation of pay scales
under G.O. Ms. No. 162 only, and there was no specific direction for
grant of the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 50008000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively. On this basis, the High Court
proceeded to determine the question of pay scale entitlement and took
a view diametrically opposite to that of the coordinate Bench in W.A.
Nos. 383-391/2009, finding that the Appellant-drivers were only entitled
to the Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 4000-6000
and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively. In our considered opinion, such an
approach is based on a narrow reading of the decision of the coordinate
Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, as it fails to appreciate the implicit
direction in this order to grant the higher pay scales to the drivers, as
mentioned supra. Thus, it appears that the High Court differed from
the view taken previously by a coordinate Bench based on a misreading
of the same. In such a situation, once it was found by the High Court
that it was in disagreement with the holding of its coordinate Bench in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
423
W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, it should not have proceeded to decide the
matter by itself, and in the interest of judicial discipline, should instead
have referred the matter to a larger Bench for its consideration.
19. Be that as it may, in the interest of expeditious disposal of
the matter, we do not deem it fit to remand the matter to the High Court
for fresh consideration at this stage. Thus, we shall proceed to decide
it on merits accordingly.
20. In our considered opinion, apart from claiming parity with
similarly placed individuals, the Appellants have been unable to justify
how and why they are entitled to the Selection Grade and Special Grade
pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 as specified in Serial
No. 8 of Schedule II to the 1998 Rules, in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162.
On the other hand, on perusing the series of revisions made to the pay
scales applicable to drivers employed with the State Government, we
find that the applicable pay scales for the Selection Grade and Special
Grade would be as per Serial No. 6 of Schedule II to the 1998 Rules,
i.e. Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively.
20.1 As the High Court has also noted in the impugned judgment,
the pay scales of the Appellants can be traced back to G.O. Ms. No.
666, Finance dated 27.06.1989, by which the State Government issued
the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989, implementing the
recommendations of the Vth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission. Under these
rules, the original and revised pay scales of 30 common categories of
posts were specified. The scale of pay for drivers was mentioned at
Serial No. 11 in the first part of the Schedule to these rules, having
been revised from Rs. 610-1075 to Rs. 950-1500.
20.2 The next revision came through G.O. Ms. No. 818, Finance,
dated 09.09.1989, whereby drivers' pay scale was increased to Rs. 9751660. Later, under G.O. Ms. No. 304, Finance dated 28.03.1990, Special
Grade and Selection Grade scales of pay were introduced for persons
who had completed 10 years and 20 years of service respectively. For
the post of drivers carrying the Ordinary Grade pay scale of Rs. 9751660, the Selection and Special Grade brackets were set as Rs. 12002040 and Rs. 1320-2040 respectively.
20.3 Finally, when the 1998 Rules were introduced through G.O.
Ms. No. 162, the post-wise determination of pay scales was replaced
by a pay scale-to-pay scale basis determination. As already seen in
Schedule I of the said rules, the pay scale of Rs. 975-1660 applicable
P. SINGARAVELAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
TIRUPPUR AND DT [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
to drivers was revised to Rs. 3200-4900. For this, the corresponding
Selection and Special Grades specified in Schedule II were Rs. 40006000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively.
21. Against this backdrop, we find substance in the submission
of the Respondents that the Appellants are not lawfully entitled to the
claimed Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 50008000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162.
22. The only question to be settled, therefore, is whether the
Appellants are entitled to claim parity with the drivers who have so far
been granted benefits vide the orders of the High Court and this Court,
as mentioned supra in paragraph 5.
23. In this respect, we find that the High Court in the impugned
judgment was correct in concluding that the Appellants cannot claim
such relief on the strength of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
when once it has been found that they are not lawfully entitled to the
same. It is well-settled by now that a person cannot invoke Article 14
to claim a benefit extended to someone similarly placed if he is not
lawfully entitled to such benefit in the first place. Article 14 embodies
the concept of positive equality alone, and not negative equality, that is
to say, it cannot be relied upon to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity.
In fact, this Court has opined that this principle extends to orders passed
by judicial fora as well. Thus, the jurisdiction of a higher court cannot
be invoked on the basis of a wrong order passed by a lower forum. In
this respect, it would be fruitful to refer to the following passage from
the decision of this Court in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer,
(2013) 14 SCC 81:
"8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the
Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even
by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said
provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a
positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have
been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake,
such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get
the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier
case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot
be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a
citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and
irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a
group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
425
forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or
superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity
or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/
decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other
party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even
otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise
it would make functioning of administration impossible.
(Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [(1995) 1 SCC 745 :
AIR 1995 SC 705], Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of
Haryana [(2005) 9 SCC 164 : AIR 2005 SC 565] , K.K.
Bhalla v. State of M.P. [(2006) 3 SCC 581 : AIR 2006 SC 898]
and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab [(2010) 11 SCC 455 : AIR
2010 SC 1937].)"
This proposition was also recently affirmed by a 3-Judge Bench
of this Court in State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati (Civil
Appeal No. 7295/2019, judgment dated 16.09.2019).
24. Thus, it is evident that the Appellants cannot claim the
Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 and
Rs. 5500-9000 respectively, solely on the strength of earlier decisions
of the High Court, without showing how they, themselves, are entitled
to such benefit in the first place.