Supreme Court Overturns Equal Pay for Senior Lab Assistants, Citing Unlawful Delegation of Judicial Powers.

The SC set aside the HC and Tribunal's orders that had granted Senior Laboratory Assistants the same pay scale as Research Assistants, finding the delegation of judicial powers to the Chief Engineer unlawful. The SC ruled that the Chief Engineer's decision did not have res judicata effect and that a writ of mandamus could not compel the State to act against statutory rules. The amounts already paid to the respondents would not be recovered. The appeal was allowed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of Senior Laboratory Assistants to the same pay scale as Research Assistants.
2. Competence of the Chief Engineer to modify or amend ROPA Rules.
3. Validity of the High Court's decision upholding the Tribunal's order.
4. Delegation of judicial powers by the Tribunal to the Chief Engineer.
5. Applicability of res judicata to the Chief Engineer's decision.
6. Issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the State to act contrary to statutory rules.

Summary:

Issue 1: Entitlement of Senior Laboratory Assistants to the same pay scale as Research Assistants
The controversy centers around whether Senior Laboratory Assistants in the Roads and Buildings Research Institute and other divisions under the Public Works (Roads) Department, Government of West Bengal, are entitled to the same pay scale as Research Assistants. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by the State of West Bengal and confirmed the State Administrative Tribunal's order granting scale No. 11 to Senior Laboratory Assistants, which was contested by the State.

Issue 2: Competence of the Chief Engineer to modify or amend ROPA Rules
The Chief Engineer extended scale No. 11 to the respondents, which was not acceptable to the State Government. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the respondents, rejecting the State's objections that the Chief Engineer was not competent to modify or amend ROPA Rules.

Issue 3: Validity of the High Court's decision upholding the Tribunal's order
The High Court dismissed the State's writ petition and upheld the Tribunal's order, adopting a reasoning that the Tribunal had delegated power to the Chief Engineer to decide the issue, which was binding and unchallenged. This reasoning was found to be untenable and unsustainable in law by the Supreme Court.

Issue 4: Delegation of judicial powers by the Tribunal to the Chief Engineer
The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's practice of directing applications to be treated as representations before executive authorities is illegal and unconstitutional. The Tribunal cannot delegate its jurisdiction to extra-constitutional authorities like the Chief Engineer.

Issue 5: Applicability of res judicata to the Chief Engineer's decision
The High Court erred in holding that the Chief Engineer's decision operates as res judicata. The Chief Engineer did not undertake any quasi-judicial duty, and his administrative decision does not bind the courts or operate as res judicata.

Issue 6: Issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the State to act contrary to statutory rules
The Supreme Court held that no writ of mandamus lies compelling the State to act contrary to statutory rules. The State Government is obligated to follow the statutory rules, and the Court cannot direct the Government to act contrary to these rules. The orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, which compelled the State to give pay scales contrary to statutory rules, were set aside.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the Tribunal's order. The amounts paid to the respondents pursuant to the impugned orders shall not be recovered. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.

---