Pay Scale Dispute of Tamil Nadu Government Drivers: Supreme Court’s Verdict

The case of P. Singaravelan & Ors. vs. The District Collector, Tiruppur & Ors. revolves around the pay scale dispute concerning drivers employed in various departments of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the petitioners were entitled to higher Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 162. The judgment provided clarity on the interpretation of government orders, the principle of parity, and the scope of judicial decisions regarding pay fixation.

Background of the Case

The appellants, a group of government-employed drivers, contested that they were entitled to pay scales in the bracket of Rs. 5000-8000 for the Selection Grade and Rs. 5500-9000 for the Special Grade. They argued that similarly placed employees had been granted these scales, and denying them the same was arbitrary.

On the other hand, the respondents, representing the Tamil Nadu government, contended that the appropriate scales for the appellants were Rs. 4000-6000 for the Selection Grade and Rs. 4300-6000 for the Special Grade. They claimed that the original grant of higher scales to some employees was erroneous and that such an error could not be extended further.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners (Government Drivers)

The petitioners argued:

• They were entitled to the higher pay scales based on G.O. Ms. No. 162.
• Around 3000 similarly placed employees had already been granted the benefit of higher scales.
• Several High Court judgments had ruled in favor of drivers receiving the revised scales.
• The government had acted arbitrarily by granting the higher pay scales to some employees while denying them to others.

Respondents (State Government)

The respondents countered:

• The pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 was granted to some drivers due to an administrative error.
• The correct pay scales for Selection Grade and Special Grade were Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000, as per Serial No. 6 of Schedule II in G.O. Ms. No. 162.
• Merely because a mistake was made in granting some employees a higher scale did not mean that all drivers should receive the same incorrect benefit.
• The High Court’s ruling in favor of the petitioners was inconsistent with proper interpretation of the government order.

High Court’s Decision

The Madras High Court, in its ruling, upheld the claims of the petitioners and directed the government to grant them the higher Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales. The decision was based on previous High Court judgments that had ruled in favor of similarly placed employees.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court examined the validity of the High Court’s decision and the interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 162. The Court made the following key observations:

“The petitioners cannot claim Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 solely based on earlier High Court judgments without proving their entitlement to such benefits in accordance with the government order.”

The Court further stated:

“Article 14 of the Constitution does not permit the perpetuation of an illegality. A mistake made in granting a benefit to one set of employees cannot be used as a precedent to extend the same benefit to others if they are not legally entitled to it.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that the drivers were not entitled to the claimed higher pay scales and upheld the government’s contention that the applicable pay scales were Rs. 4000-6000 for the Selection Grade and Rs. 4300-6000 for the Special Grade.

As a result:

• The appeals by the petitioners were dismissed.
• The High Court’s decision was overturned.
• The pay scales for the petitioners were fixed at Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 as per G.O. Ms. No. 162.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling establishes an important precedent in service law regarding pay scale disputes. The key takeaways from the decision are:

• Judicial discipline: A coordinate Bench of the High Court should not depart from established rulings without referring the matter to a larger Bench.
• Principle of parity: Employees cannot claim benefits solely based on past erroneous grants made to others.
• Correct interpretation of government orders: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that government orders should be interpreted based on their intended scope, rather than on previous mistakes or misinterpretations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case provides clarity on the legal position regarding pay scale disputes for government employees. The decision underscores the importance of proper interpretation of service rules and government orders, ensuring that benefits are granted strictly according to legal entitlement. The judgment prevents the misuse of Article 14 to demand benefits based on past errors and reinforces judicial discipline in handling service-related matters.

Petitioner Name: P. Singaravelan & Ors..
Respondent Name: The District Collector, Tiruppur & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Krishna Murari.
Place Of Incident: Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 18-12-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: P. Singaravelan & Or vs The District Collect Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 18-12-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by Krishna Murari
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category