Court grants representation for deceased respondent, affirms pay scale entitlement, emphasizes prospective overruling.

The court allowed the application to bring the legal representative of the deceased respondent on record. The petition challenging the order directing entitlement to regular pay scale benefits was affirmed with the modification that the respondent is entitled to the minimum pay scale without increments from 1.7.1988. The court emphasized the principle of prospective overruling and finality of rights determined by judicial decisions, applying the judgment in Ram Naresh Rawat. The petition was disposed of with modifications, affirming the award with the specified change in pay scale entitlement.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for bringing legal representative on record.
2. Entitlement to regular pay scale and consequential benefits.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Ashiwini Ray & Others.
4. Principle of prospective overruling.
5. Estoppel against the statute.
6. Finality of rights determined by judicial decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Bringing Legal Representative on Record:
The application I.A.No.757/2019 was filed to bring the legal representative of the deceased respondent on record. The respondent had expired on 16.11.2018. The court allowed the application, permitting the necessary amendments to be carried out by the counsel for the petitioners in the court itself.

2. Entitlement to Regular Pay Scale and Consequential Benefits:
The petition challenged the order dated 5.11.2016 by Labour Court No.1, Gwalior, which directed that the respondent, classified from 1.7.1988, was entitled to regular pay scale benefits and consequential benefits, including a payment of Rs.11,59,036/- as the difference in pay.

3. Applicability of the Supreme Court Judgment in Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Ashiwini Ray & Others:
The petitioners cited the Supreme Court judgment in Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Ashiwini Ray & Others, which held that a "permanent employee" is entitled to the minimum of the graded pay scale without increments. The respondent argued that this judgment has no retrospective operation. The court considered the submissions and noted that the principle of prospective overruling does not apply unless specifically mentioned.

4. Principle of Prospective Overruling:
The court referred to several Supreme Court cases, including Sarwan Kumar vs. Madan Lal Aggarwal, M.A. Murthy vs. State of Karnataka, and K. Madhava Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, which discussed the doctrine of prospective overruling. It was established that the Supreme Court's decisions are presumed to be the law from inception unless explicitly stated otherwise. The doctrine of prospective overruling can only be applied by the Supreme Court and typically in constitutional matters.

5. Estoppel Against the Statute:
The court cited the Supreme Court case of Bengal Iron Corpn. v. CTO, which held that there can be no estoppel against the statute. The law declared by the courts is presumed to be in existence from the beginning.

6. Finality of Rights Determined by Judicial Decisions:
The court referred to Union of India vs. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Assn., which clarified that rights determined by a final judicial decision cannot be reopened due to a subsequent contrary judgment. However, since the Labour Court's order was under challenge, the judgment in Ram Naresh Rawat applied, entitling the respondent only to the minimum pay scale without increments from 1.7.1988.

Conclusion:
The petition was disposed of with modifications. The award dated 5.11.2016 by the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior, was affirmed with the modification that the respondent is entitled to the minimum pay scale without any increment from 1.7.1988. All other terms and conditions of the award remained unchanged.

---