CHENNAI: In a rare but bold gesture, the Madras high court has admitted that it passed an incorrect order seven years ago that resulted in an avalanche of petitions, hundreds of incorrect subsequent rulings and loss of crores of rupees to the exchequer. " Greatness of the court lies only in its courage and ability to correct its mistakes. An illegality will not undergo a metamorphosis and become legal merely because it received the seal of approval of a court of law," the court said.
A division bench of Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice T Mathivanan made the observation on Wednesday while rejecting the claim of a batch of government vehicle drivers who demanded a payscale of Rs 5,000-5,500 without any entitlement and legal right.
The association of government vehicle drivers had been fighting legal battles at several levels to correct perceived anomalies in their payscale since Fifth Pay Commission days. Even while one batch of cases was pending in the Supreme Court, a single judge of the Madras high court passed an innocuous - and legally untenable - order on September 30, 2008, directing the government to grant higher selection grade and special grade benefits to the drivers.
Though the order did not mention any specific payscale, it opened a floodgate of litigations, with even people who had retired long ago and those who had not questioned the issue for years together rushing to court demanding monetary benefits on the strength of the order. In the name of 'judicial discipline', subsequent judges started issuing specific rulings directing the government to fix Rs 5,000-5,500 as payscale for these drivers, without tracing the origin of the demand.
It was only after several thousand drivers, both in service and retired, had managed to extract their pound of flesh that the racket was noticed by Justice D Hariparanthaman, who traced the genesis of the problem and refused to pass orders favouring the drivers on November 18, 2013. All those " affected" by the order then queued up before the division bench headed by Justice Ramasubramanian demanding parity in treatment.
Narrating how the illegality unfolded over a period of seven years and how the government was bleeding under the threat of contempt and coercion, the bench of Justice Ramasubramanian and Justice Mathivanan said: " We have gone through the government orders many times, to find out what scale of pay the drivers are entitled to in selection and special grades. We are unable to find, however lenient our approach is, that the drivers could legitimately lay a claim selection grade scale of pay of Rs 5,000-8,000 and special grade scale of pay of Rs 5,500-9,000. Therefore, what they have claimed and got in most of the previous decisions of this court is not what they are lawfully entitled to."
Dismissing all the appeals of drivers, the bench made it clear that they were entitled to a selection grade scale of pay of Rs 4,000-100-6,000 and a special grade scale of pay of Rs 4,300-100-6,000, but not more than that.
Citing the Supreme Court, the bench said: " In rectifying an error, no personal inhibitions should debar the court, because no person should suffer by reason of any mistake of the court. The Supreme Court focused on the elementary rule of justice that no party should suffer due to the mistake of the court."
A division bench of Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice T Mathivanan made the observation on Wednesday while rejecting the claim of a batch of government vehicle drivers who demanded a payscale of Rs 5,000-5,500 without any entitlement and legal right.
The association of government vehicle drivers had been fighting legal battles at several levels to correct perceived anomalies in their payscale since Fifth Pay Commission days. Even while one batch of cases was pending in the Supreme Court, a single judge of the Madras high court passed an innocuous - and legally untenable - order on September 30, 2008, directing the government to grant higher selection grade and special grade benefits to the drivers.
Though the order did not mention any specific payscale, it opened a floodgate of litigations, with even people who had retired long ago and those who had not questioned the issue for years together rushing to court demanding monetary benefits on the strength of the order. In the name of 'judicial discipline', subsequent judges started issuing specific rulings directing the government to fix Rs 5,000-5,500 as payscale for these drivers, without tracing the origin of the demand.
It was only after several thousand drivers, both in service and retired, had managed to extract their pound of flesh that the racket was noticed by Justice D Hariparanthaman, who traced the genesis of the problem and refused to pass orders favouring the drivers on November 18, 2013. All those " affected" by the order then queued up before the division bench headed by Justice Ramasubramanian demanding parity in treatment.
Narrating how the illegality unfolded over a period of seven years and how the government was bleeding under the threat of contempt and coercion, the bench of Justice Ramasubramanian and Justice Mathivanan said: " We have gone through the government orders many times, to find out what scale of pay the drivers are entitled to in selection and special grades. We are unable to find, however lenient our approach is, that the drivers could legitimately lay a claim selection grade scale of pay of Rs 5,000-8,000 and special grade scale of pay of Rs 5,500-9,000. Therefore, what they have claimed and got in most of the previous decisions of this court is not what they are lawfully entitled to."
Dismissing all the appeals of drivers, the bench made it clear that they were entitled to a selection grade scale of pay of Rs 4,000-100-6,000 and a special grade scale of pay of Rs 4,300-100-6,000, but not more than that.
Citing the Supreme Court, the bench said: " In rectifying an error, no personal inhibitions should debar the court, because no person should suffer by reason of any mistake of the court. The Supreme Court focused on the elementary rule of justice that no party should suffer due to the mistake of the court."
No comments:
Post a Comment