2008 (6) TMI 578 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court sets aside orders granting higher pay scales under West Bengal Career Advancement Scheme citing jurisdictional errors

The State of West Bengal Versus Kamal Sengupta and another

The SC set aside HC and Tribunal orders granting higher pay scales under West Bengal's Career Advancement Scheme. The Court held that the Tribunal lacked ... Claim for grant a benefit of higher pay scales in terms of the Career Advancement Scheme (`the Scheme') framed by the Government of West Bengal - Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution - Whether a Tribunal established under Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (`the Act') can review its decision on the basis of subsequent order/decision/judgment rendered by a coordinate or larger bench or any superior Court or on the basis of subsequent event/development? - HELD THAT:- A holistic reading of the Memorandum dated 13.3.2001 makes it clear that the same cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be read as suo moto acceptance by the State Government of the respondents' claim for Scale Nos.19 and 21. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have considered the same for granting relief to the respondents and that too by ignoring para 6 of the Memorandum in terms of which the additional posts were to become operative from 1.1.2001. In any case, the Tribunal could not have, without recording a reason based finding that order dated 25.2.1997 was vitiated by a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or there existed some other reason analogous to an error apparent, reviewed that order simply on the basis of the decision taken by the State Government to sanction posts in Scale No.19 for members of the service apart from other State Services. A perusal of High Court's order shows that even while accepting the contention of the appellants that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to review order dated 25.2.1997, the High Court approved the direction given for extending the benefit of Scale Nos.19 and 21 to the respondents, albeit without taking cognizance of the stark fact that they had received promotions on the posts of Assistant Director, Deputy Director and Director; that they were holding highest posts in the service; that they were given the benefit of higher pay scales under ROPA 1981 and ROPA 1990 and no material had been placed before the Court to show that members of other State Services to whom the benefit of Scale Nos.19 and 21 had been given under the Scheme had also received three promotions after joining the service. The High Court also overlooked the fact that members of three out 17 State Services had not been given benefit of Scale No.19 and posts in Scale No.21 had been sanctioned only for 2 out of 17 State Services. It is our considered view that in the absence of factual foundation, the High Court was not justified in recording a conclusion that denial of Scale Nos.19 and 21 had resulted in violation of the respondent's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and that too by ignoring the fact that the respondents had not produced any tangible evidence to prima facie prove that they had been subjected to hostile discrimination or that the decision of the State Government not to extend the benefit of Scale Nos.19 and 21 to members of the service was irrational and arbitrary. It is trite to say that in such matters the onus is always on the employee to prima facie substantiate the plea of discrimination or arbitrary exercise of power and only then the State or its instrumentality/agency or the public body (the employer) can be called upon to show that its decision is non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary, fair and in public interest. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court as also the one passed by the Tribunal in R.A. No.26 of 1998 are set aside. Issues Involved:1. Whether a Tribunal established under Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act can review its decision based on subsequent orders/decisions/judgments or subsequent events/developments.2. Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of higher pay scales under the Career Advancement Scheme and if denial of such benefits constituted hostile discrimination.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Tribunal's Power to Review its Decision:- Legal Framework: The Tribunal's power to review its decision is akin to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. This power can be exercised only on specific grounds: discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.- Case Law and Precedents: The Tribunal cannot review its decision based on a subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger bench or a superior Court. The explanation added to Order 47 by the 1976 amendment clarifies that a subsequent decision on a question of law cannot be a ground for review.- Tribunal's Error: The Tribunal erred in reviewing its decision based on the subsequent order in Joydeb Biswas's case and the issuance of the Memorandum dated 13.3.2001, which sanctioned additional posts in Scale No.19 for various State Services. The Tribunal's reliance on subsequent events/developments was misplaced as they occurred after the initial decision and could not be considered for review.- High Court's Stance: The High Court also erred by approving the Tribunal's direction for extending the benefit of Scale Nos.19 and 21 to the respondents without considering the limitations on the Tribunal's power of review.2. Entitlement to Higher Pay Scales and Discrimination:- Respondents' Claim: The respondents claimed entitlement to higher pay scales (Scale Nos.19 and 21) under the Career Advancement Scheme, alleging discrimination as other State Services received these benefits.- Tribunal's Initial Decision: The Tribunal initially dismissed the respondents' claim, stating that the Scheme was meant for employees without adequate promotional opportunities, and the respondents had already received promotions and were holding the highest posts in their service.- Review Application: In their review application, the respondents asserted stagnation and discrimination, relying on the subsequent order in Joydeb Biswas's case, which directed the State Government to act on the recommendations made by the Secretary of the Administrative Department.- Tribunal's Review Decision: The Tribunal, in its review decision, erroneously held that the respondents were discriminated against and directed the State Government to extend the benefit of Scale Nos.19 and 21 to them. The Tribunal's reliance on the subsequent Memorandum dated 13.3.2001 and the order in Joydeb Biswas's case was misplaced.- High Court's Error: The High Court approved the Tribunal's direction without considering that the respondents had received promotions and were holding the highest posts. The High Court also overlooked the fact that members of three out of 17 State Services had not been given the benefit of Scale No.19 and posts in Scale No.21 were sanctioned only for two services.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining and allowing the review application filed by the respondents. The direction given by the Tribunal for extending the benefit of Scale Nos.19 and 21 to the respondents was legally unsustainable. The High Court's order was also set aside for failing to consider the limitations on the Tribunal's power of review and the factual foundation required to substantiate the plea of discrimination. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.