HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. RAJBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB) from the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana directing HSEB to pay the respondents the revised scale of pay as fixed by Notification dated 7th February, 1991 with effect from 1.1.1986 and not from 1.5.1990, as notified. It is, inter-alia, argued by the appellants that the High Court had proceeded on two bases in allowing the Writ Petition against the HSEB; (1) that the issue had been concluded against HESB, by an earlier decision of same High Court in the case of Shyam Sunder v. HSEB, Panchkula, 1998 1 SCT 543 in Civil Writ Petition No. 13360/1996 from which the SLP, which had been filed by HSEB against the decision, had been dismissed by this Court; (2) that in view of the decision in CWP No. 13360/1996, it was the duty of HSEB to follow the same principle with regard to every employee relating to fixation of pay scale and not limit the relief to those who had approached the Court. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the mere facts that the Special Leave petition from the decision of the High Court in Shyam Sunder's case had been dismissed by this Court, did not mean that the issues had been determined by this Court. It is submitted that it was open to the High Court to have gone into the issues and differ with the conclusion reached in Shyam Sunder's case by the earlier Division Bench. Reliance has been placed on the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, 1995 4 SCC 683 in this context. It was also submitted that in fact Shyam Sunder's decision was erroneously decided. In that case the Division Bench had proceeded on the basis as if what had been granted by the 1991 Notification, was a modification of an earlier pay revision in 1986. In fact, it is said that what was effected in 1991 was a grant of a fresh revision of a pay scale in respect of certain employees, and there was no bar in directing such fresh revision to be effective from a particular date. Apart from this, it is contended that the date 1.5.1990 had been fixed because the same had been adopted by the State Government in granting revision of pay in respect of certain employees with whom the respondents herein had claimed parity. They have also referred to further documents to show that the date 1.5.1990 fixed in the 1991 Notification was the outcome of a rational decision, which should not have been interfered with by the High Court. It is also submitted that the Court should have considered the question of the financial capacity of HSEB to bear the expenses of an unforeseen and unexpected expense, which would, according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of HSEB, amount to over Rs. 96 Crores. Our attention has also been drawn to other decisions of the High Court in respect of the 1991 Notification, namely, Om Prakash Malik & Ors. v. HSEB (W.P. No. 592/1988) LPA 771/1991; Sat Pal Singh v. HSEB (CWP 10830/1988); LPA 807/1991 where a Single Judge had directed the grant of revision of pay scale with effect from January 1, 1986 and the decision had been set aside on an appeal and the matter remitted back to the learned Single Judge for re-determination of the basis on which the date 1st May, 1990 had been chosen as the effective date for grant of the revised pay scale. Additionally, they have also relied upon the decision in S.K. Bishnoi v. HSEB (CWP No. 12483/1990) where the claim of the petitioner for revision of pay with effect from 1.1.1986 was rejected and the SLP was also dismissed. It is conceded that as far as Shyam Sunder's case was concerned since the SLP was dismissed, HSEB has been compelled to comply with the court's Order in so far as the parties to that particular Writ Application were concerned.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has, on the other hand, submitted that the decision in Shyam Sunder's case had attained finality and that the HSEB could not have a different scale of pay for the same post. It is also submitted that the other decisions of the High Court cited by the appellants were distinguishable. It is submitted that what had been effected of the Notification was correction of the discrepancy in the pay scale and not a fresh revision, as contended by the appellants. It is also submitted that there have been other decisions of the High Court, namely, the decision in Jai Prakash v. State of Haryana (WP 1804/1996) and Subhkaran Singh v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court (WP 4894/1998), which have directed the revisions of pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986, although confining the relief of three years prior to the date of the judgment. Additionally, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, an SLP from a similar decision of the High Court in CWP No. 9703/1998 State of Haryana v. B. Bushan Gupta had been dismissed on the 21st September, 2001.

(3.) Since the matter involves a large number of employees, it is unfortunate that there have been apparently several inconsistent decisions on the same issue by the same High Court. Of course, by the impugned judgment before us, the learned Judge of the High Court have sought to maintain the element of consistency by following the earlier decision in Shyam Sunder case. However, the reason for following the earlier decision, namely, the dismissal of the SLP from such decision, was incorrect. This Court has repeatedly held and has recently restated in the case of Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2000 6 SCC 359 that when an SLP to the Supreme Court is dismissed by a non-speaking order, such dismissal neither attracts the doctrine or merger nor amounts to declaration of law by this Court under Article 141. It was therefore open to the High Court to have differed with the conclusion. In Shyam Sunder case, if it was satisfied that the reasoning therein could not be supported. In following Shyam Sunder case, the High Court overlooked the other arguments on merits raised on behalf of the appellants before us, particularly the argument that what was effected by the 1991 Notification was not a mere correction of a discrepancy in the earlier pay revision in 1986 but grant of fresh revised pay scale altogether. The point has clearly been taken in the affidavit of opposition at length. It cannot be said without more that the submission of the appellants is without any merit having regard to the documents already on record and those produced during the hearing before us. We therefore deem it proper to set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for determining the issue raised on merits afresh and if necessary differ with the earlier view in Shyam Sunder's case. Needless to say if there is such difference of opinion, the High Court would have to refer the issue to a larger Bench for a resolution of such conflict. It is also advisable in the light of the fact that such a large number of employees are involved and such a vast number of cases have been filed that all the matters are tagged together, but the appeal may be heard and disposed of treating the present writ petition which is the subject matter of the present appeal namely, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., as the main case.