IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 65-67_____ OF 2009
@ S.L.P. (C) NOS.252-25! "# 2007
E$. %&$'()$)* S+*,( %$-.)/ 0 A*$. ...A11-//)*23
V3.
P&*4)5 S2)2- E/-'2$+'+26 7")$8 0 O$3. 9R-31"*8-*23
J U D % M E N T
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These three appeals arise out of orders dated
23
rd
September, 2005, 21
st
April, 2006 and 23
rd
ebruar!, 200", relating to #ivil $rit
%etition &o.16'11 of 2003 and (evie) %etitions
filed therein before the *igh #ourt of %un+ab
and *ar!ana at #handigarh.
1
3. The appellants herein filed the aforesaid )rit
petition, inter alia, for the follo)ing
relief,-
:(+;) <&)3(+*, 2(- "$8-$ *". 202 8)2-8 9.7.2002
(A**-=&$- I*8+)* P-*)/ C"8-->) 1)33-8 56 2(-
$-31"*8-*2 N".> .+2(8$).+*, 2(- 5-*-#+23 "# 1)6
#+=)2+"* )/$-)86 ,$)*2-8 2" 1-2+2+"*-$3 S)2+*8-$
S+*,( )*8 8+$-'2+*, 2(- $-31"*8-*2 2" 32-1-&1 2(-
1)6 "# 2(- 1-2+2+"*-$3 2" 2()2 "# 2(-+$ 4&*+"$
S(. R)? P$)@)3( S("$+ )*8 2(- 1-2+2+"*-$3 ?)6 5-
,$)*2-8 )// )$$-)$3 "# P)6A $-2+$)/ 5-*-#+23 )*8
"2(-$ '"*3-B&-*2+)/ 5-*-#+23 .+2( +*2-$-32 @ CD
1-$ )**&?.E
.. /n the )ritten statement01ounter affidavit
filed on behalf of the respondent, %un+ab
State 2le1tri1it! 3oard, and its offi1ers, it
)as stated in %aragraph " that the relief
1laimed b! the petitioner had alread! been
granted. $hen the )rit petition 1ame up for
final hearing the *igh #ourt on 23
rd
September, 2005, disposed of the same b!
passing the follo)ing order ,-
2
:I* ;+-. "# 2(- );-$?-*23 ?)8- +* 1)$),$)1(
7 "# 2(- .$+22-* 32)2-?-*2A 2(- .$+2
1-2+2+"* ()3 5--* $-*8-$-8 +*#$&'2&"&3.
D+31"3-8 "# )3 3&'(.E
5. Subse4uentl!, a revie) petition 1ame to be
filed b! the )rit petitioners before the *igh
#ourt 1laiming that the statement made in
paragraph " of the )ritten statement,
1on1erned onl! the )rit petitioner &o.2, and
)ithout 1onsidering the 1ase of the respondent
&o.1 on a separate footing he too )as denied
relief, although he )as not 1overed b! su1h
statement. $hen the (evie) %etition 1ame up
for hearing on 21
st
April, 2006, learned
1ounsel for the petitioners )as not present
and on the submissions made on behalf of the
respondents that no relief had been 1laimed in
the )rit petition on behalf of the petitioner
&o.1, the *igh #ourt dismissed the revie)
petition b! passing the follo)ing order,-
3
:L-)$*-8 '"&*3-/ #"$ 2(- $-31"*8-*2 3&5?+23 2()2
2(- $-/+-# '/)+?-8 +* 2(- $-;+-. 1-2+2+"* +3 *"2
'/)+?-8 +* 2(- ?)+* 1-2+2+"* #"$ 1-2+2+"*-$ N"..
T(-$-#"$-A 2(- $-;+-. 1-2+2+"* +3 *"2
?)+*2)+*)5/-.
D+3?+33-8.E
6. 5n dismissal of the revie) petition in the
absen1e of the 1ounsel for the petitioners, a
mis1ellaneous appli1ation )as filed for
modifi1ation of the order passed in the revie)
petition, )hi1h )as also dismissed b! the *igh
#ourt on 23
rd
ebruar!, 200".
". /t is against the said three orders of the *igh
#ourt that these appeals have been filed.
'. Appearing for the appellants, 6r. &idesh 7upta,
learned senior advo1ate, submitted that )hen the
)rit petition )as filed on behalf of both the
appellants, it )as onl! natural that the reliefs
therein had been 1laimed in respe1t of both and it
4
1ould not be 1onfined to the appellant &o.2 alone,
as )as done in the instant 1ase, merel! on a11ount
of the statement made in the )ritten statement of
the respondents that the grievan1e of the appellant
&o.2 had alread! been addressed. 6r. 7upta
submitted that the appellants )ere similarl!
situated and it )as their 1ommon ground that the!
)ere re1eiving lesser salar! than their +unior.
6r. 7upta submitted that %aragraph " of the )rit
petition )as absolutel! 1lear that it )as the
1ommon 1ase of the appellants that sin1e the! )ere
re1eiving lesser pa! than their +unior, Shri (am
%ra8ash Shori, )ho )as re1eiving a higher salar!,
their salaries )ere also re4uired to be stepped up
to that of Shri Shori. 6r. 7upta also urged that
the position )ould be further 1larified from the
4uestion of la) formulated in %aragraph 9 of the
)rit petition. /t )as urged that it )as,
therefore, )rong to sa! that no 1ase had been made
out on behalf of the appellant &o.1 and hen1e no
relief 1ould be granted in his favour.
5
9. (eferring to pra!er :iv; in the )rit petition,
6r. 7upta urged that spe1ifi1 referen1e had
been made to the appellant &o.2, Satinder
Singh, sin1e his pa! had been stepped up but
)as, thereafter, redu1ed b! an order dated 9
th
<ul!, 2002, passed b! the respondent &o.3
)ithdra)ing the benefit of pa! fi=ation )hi1h
had alread! been given to him. 6r. 7upta urged
that the pra!er, ho)ever, )as not 1onfined to
the appellant &o.2 alone, but to the appellant
&o.1 also, as other)ise the ver! purpose of him
being made petitioner &o.1 in the )rit petition
)ould be meaningless. 6r. 7upta submitted that
the *igh #ourt )as misled into rel!ing on the
statement made in paragraph " of the )ritten
statement filed b! the respondent in dismissing
the )rit petition as far as the appellant &o.1
)as 1on1erned. 2ven )hile 1onsidering the
revie) petition, in the absen1e of learned
1ounsel for the appellants, the #ourt )as
persuaded to a11ept the statement made on
behalf of the respondent that relief 1laimed in
6
the revie) petition had not been 1laimed in the
)rit petition itself as far as the appellant
&o.1 is 1on1erned and the revie) petition )as
not, therefore, maintainable. 6r. 7upta
submitted that the orders passed on the )rit
petition and revie) petitions )ere passed on an
erroneous understanding that the appellant &o.1
had not pra!ed for an! relief in the )rit
petition and he )as not therefore entitled to
the reliefs pra!ed for b! the appellants.
10. 6r. <agdish Singh #hhabra, )ho appeared for
the %un+ab State 2le1tri1it! 3oard and its
authorities, reiterated the submissions made
before the *igh #ourt that in the absen1e of
an! 1ase being made out or an! relief being
1laimed on behalf of the appellant &o.1 in the
)rit petition the *igh #ourt had 4uite
1orre1tl! dismissed the )rit petition on the
ground that no relief 1ould be given to the
appellant &o.1 and the relief pra!ed for b! the
appellant &o.2 had alread! been given to him.
7
11. 6r. #hhabra also attempted to +ustif! the
disparit! in the pa! of Shri Shori and the
appellant &o.1 b! urging that the appellant &o.
1 had been granted the promotional s1ale )ith
effe1t from 1
st
<anuar!, 1996, )here the
benefits of in1rement in the s1ale )ere lo)er.
5n the other hand, Shri Shori )ho +oined the
servi1es of the 3oard in 19"., )as granted the
promotional s1ale on 1"
th
6a!, 2006, )ith
effe1t from 1
st
September, 2001, )hen the
in1rements and the pa!-s1ales )ere higher. 6r.
#hhabra submitted that it is the disparit! in
the in1remental benefits that led to the
anomal! of the appellant &o.1 getting a lo)er
salar! in the promotional s1ale.
12. *aving regard to the submissions made on behalf
of the respe1tive parties, )e have little
hesitation in a11epting 6r. 7upta>s submissions
that sin1e the )rit petition had been +ointl! filed
8
on behalf of the appellants, )hose interest )as
1ommon, the pra!er therein should not have been
1onfined to the appellant &o.2 alone and that the
*igh #ourt should have granted relief to the
appellant &o.1 also b! dire1ting that his pa! also
be stepped up to that of his +unior, Shri (.%.
Shori. Although, this 4uestion does not appear to
have been gone into b! the *igh #ourt for the
simple reason that the )rit petition )as disposed
of onl! on the averments 1ontained in paragraph "
of the )ritten statement filed on behalf of
respondents that the grievan1e of the appellant
&o.2 dul! addressed, there ought to have been at
least some dis1ussion in the +udgment of the *igh
#ourt regarding the 1laim of the appellant &o.1.
?nfortunatel!, the 1ase of the appellant &o.1 )as
not 1onsidered at all b! the *igh #ourt.
13. Something ma! be said )ith regard to 6r.
#hhabra>s submissions about the differen1e in
in1rement in the s1ales )hi1h the appellant &o.1
and Shri Shori are pla1ed, but the same is still
9
1ontrar! to the settled prin1iple of la) that a
senior 1annot be paid lesser salar! than his
+unior. /n su1h 1ir1umstan1es, even if, there )as a
differen1e in the in1remental benefits in the s1ale
given to the appellant &o.1 and the s1ale given to
Shri Shori, su1h anomal! should not have been
allo)ed to 1ontinue and ought to have been
re1tified so that the pa! of the appellant &o.1 )as
also stepped up to that of Shri Shori, as appears
to have been done in the 1ase of the appellant
&o.2.
1.. $e are unable to a11ept the reasoning of the
*igh #ourt in this regard or the submissions
made in support thereof b! 6r. #hhabra, sin1e
the ver! ob+e1t to be a1hieved is to bring the
pa! s1ale of the appellant &o.1 at par )ith that
of his +unior. $e are 1learl! of the opinion
that the reasoning of the *igh #ourt )as
erroneous and the appellant &o.1 )as also
entitled to the same benefits of pa! parit! )ith
10
Shri Shori as has been granted to the appellant
&o.2.
15.$e, a11ordingl!, allo) the appeals and set aside
the +udgment of the *igh #ourt. #onse4uentl!,
the )rit petition is also allo)ed and the
respondents are dire1ted to e=tend the benefits
of pa! parit! )ith Shri Shori to the appellant
&o.1, as )as done in the 1ase of the appellant
&o.2.
11
16. The )rit petition is allo)ed to the aforesaid
e=tent.
1".There )ill, ho)ever, be no order as to 1osts.
_____________________J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
_____________________J.
(MARKANDEY KATJU)
N-. D-/(+
D)2-8F 09.0.2009
12