A classic case of the “fence eating the crop” which reveals what ails our State owned bodies. The 2nd respondent, Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. [for brevity “Matsyafed”], is a Co-operative Society, which is a State Level Apex Society, having as its members the Primary Fishermen Welfare Societies within the State. Initially the State had formed a Corporation, by name “Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd.”, to take over the activities, till then run by the Fisheries Department of the Government of Kerala. Recurring losses landed the Corporation in trouble, which necessitated all the loss making major units of the Fisheries Corporation to be transferred back to the Department. The Fishermen's Welfare Societies constituted under the Kerala Fishermen Welfare Societies Act, 1980 also suffered a similar fate on account of lack of sufficient finance. Matsyafed was constituted in the year 1984, so as to facilitate financing from the National Financial Institutions and took over the Corporation and the co-operative organizations in the fisheries sector. Matsyafed too is said to be reeling under financial travails, one of the reasons for which, is decipherable from the facts of the instant case. 2. The petitioners herein claim parity of pay with that of respondents 4 and 5. According to the petitioners, their request has been recommended by one and all; but has not crystallized, by appropriate fixation of pay, for reason of none of the authorities taking up the responsibility of issuing positive orders. They seek positive directions from this Court, which would enable the appropriate authority to pass orders. This is a common phenomenon where orders are obtained from this Court for consideration of a 'representation', on the strength of which orders are issued, purportedly in compliance of this Court's directions even when this Court has stated nothing on merits. The pay parity sought for by the petitioners, also emanate from such an order of this Court, passed in an earlier writ petition, wherein respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.(C).No.27822 of 2006 along with another were the petitioners.
3. It would be appropriate first to look into the facts of O.P.No.32511 of 2002. The petitioners in the said writ petition were selected as Assistant Secretaries by direct recruitment after conducting a competitive examination and interview by the Institute of Management in Government. All the petitioners were employees of the Department of Fisheries and their appointment to Matsyafed was on deputation basis, on usual terms and conditions governing deputation to foreign service. Later, on exercising an option to get absorbed in Matsyafed, their lien in the Fisheries Department was terminated and they were absorbed as Assistant Secretaries, in the service of the Matsyafed, as is evident from Exhibit P2. Their initial appointment to the post of Assistant Secretary was immediately after the constitution of the Matsyafed in 1984 and their absorption was in May and June,1990, as is seen from Exhibit P2.
4. Subsequent to the deputation of the petitioners, but before their absorption, the additional 4th respondent and three others were appointed as Junior Executive Trainees on a stipend of Rs.1,000/- per month, for a period of one year. Subsequently, on 17.06.1987 on completion of the training, they were offered appointment as Junior Executive (Marketing), on probation, in the scale of pay of Rs.650-25- 850-30-1100. The Junior Executives (Marketing) obviously was a lower post than that of the Assistant Secretary and was entitled only to a lesser scale of pay. The petitioners as Assistant Secretaries at the time of their appointment of deputation, as is evidenced in Exhibit P2, were appointed in the scale of pay of Rs.1250-2500.
5. Subsequently, in 1993 the Junior Executives (Marketing), four in number, filed O.P.No.9503 of 1993, claiming that their pay fixed at the time of appointment was at a lower scale and that they were entitled to a higher scale of pay. The said writ petition concluded with Exhibit P7 judgment, wherein the claim of the Junior Executives (Marketing) was directed to be considered. The Junior Executives (Marketing) relied on a categorization made in the Staff Regulation of 1985, wherein posts were classified as Class-I-Senior Executives, Class-II-Executives, Class-III-Junior Executives, Class-IV-Supervisory and Subordinate Staff, which is produced herein also, at Exhibit P8(a). The claim of the Junior Executives (Marketing) was that Class-III Junior Executives were indicated as coming within the scale of pay, the minimum of which is Rs.1000/- and above and below Rs.1400/-. The scale of pay of Junior Executives (Marketing), as indicated in their appointment order, at Rs.650-1150 was, hence, alleged to be a mistake and they sought correction of the same. This Court directed consideration of their claim by Exhibit P7.
6. The recommendation made by the Matsyafed on 14.10.1992 as per Exhibit P7(a) was directed to be considered. Exhibit P7(a) was the basis on which W.P.(C).No.9503 of 1993 was filed; Exhibit P7(a) was again a recommendation of the Matsyafed, in favour of the claim put forth by the petitioners and by Exhibit P7 judgment, it acquired a certain amount of sanctity; which it lacked otherwise; despite this Court having not spoken on the merits. Hence, this Court called for the Judges Papers in O.P.No.9503 of 1993 and has gone through the same. Exhibit P7(a) produced herein was produced as Exhibit P11 in W.P.(C).No.9503 of 1993. The recommendation made was to fix the Junior Executives (Marketing) either in the scale of pay of Rs.1125-1725 or Rs.1200-1800 as per the pay revision orders, effective from 01.07.1978. The Government by Exhibit P11 accorded sanction “revising the scale of pay of Junior Executives at Rs.1125-1725 as on 1978, extending them the benefit of the subsequent pay revisions sanctioned to the Government Employees” subject to the condition that no back arrears will be paid.
7. There is a glaring anomaly in the recommendation made and what was granted by the Government; which has given rise to the present claim. The recommendation as per Ext.P7(a) was as follows:
“9. Having made provision in the staff regulation that those who were in the scale of pay the minimum of which was Rs.1,000/- and above, but below Rs.1,400/- and having treated the applicants under the classification Jr.Executives, it would have been fair that they were appointed in a scale the minimum of which would be above Rs.1,000/- and below Rs.1,400/-. Taking 1978 pay revision into account they were to be given either of the following scale of pay:
1. 1125-60-1725 (10 years)
2. 1200-60-1800 (10 years) 10. The above suggestions is because of the fact that they pay range for classification under clause 11 of Matsyafed Staff Regulation was as per the pay revision orders effective from 1.7.1978. In the pay revision orders effective from 1.7.1983 i.e. as per G.O.(P) 515/85/Fin dated 16.9.1985, the above two scales of pay were merged into one as a scale of pay of Rs.1950-950”.
The recommendiation, hence, indicated fixation at Rs.1125-1725 as on the revised scale of pay of 1978, but the scales of pay indicated were at the pre-revised rate. We shall come to that immediately after completing the narration of facts.
8. On the Junior Executives (Marketing) being granted revised scale of pay as per Exhibit P11, they started drawing higher pay, than the petitioners in O.P.No.32511 of 2002. The petitioners, hence, moved the said writ petition, seeking parity of pay, contending that the post to which they were appointed, being Assistant Secretary, was higher to that of the Junior Executive (Marketing). They relied on Exhibit P3 Staff Regulation, which also brought in re-designation of posts and scales of pay. As per Exhibit P3, the post of Assistant Secretary in the scale of pay of Rs.2375-3500 was redesignated as Deputy Manager [Rs.7450-11475]. The post of Junior Executive (Marketing) in the scale of pay of Rs.2000-3200 was redesignated as Assistant Manager [Rs.6500-10550]. There can be no doubt as to who occupied the higher post and were drawing the higher scale of pay. Exhibit P11, however, overturned the admitted hierarchy of posts and placed Junior Executives (Marketing) at a more advantageous position, at least monetarily, than the petitioners; by Exhibits P11 and P12. The petitioners, hence, claimed parity and challenged Exhibit P10 proceedings of the Matsyafed rejecting the request of the petitioners for similar enhancement of monetary benefits. The authorities in the Corporation, were too eager to recommend pay parity, that too, on the admitted position of the petitioners occupying a higher post. Hence, O.P.No.32511 of 2002 to give recognition and sanctity to the various recommendations.
9. Later, as matters stood thus, the Junior Executives (Marketing), who were granted revision of pay scales, were redesignated as Assistant General Managers by an order dated 04.04.2006. This resulted in the Junior Executives (Marketing) stealing a march over the petitioners, in the status occupied in the Company. The hierarchical jump of the Junior Executives (Marketing) over the petitioners, who were remaining as Managers prompted the filing of W.P.(C).No.27822 of 2006, in which Exhibits P8, P9 and P10 produced therein, were challenged. Exhibit P8 is the Government Order, which granted the revision of pay as on 01.07.1978. Exhibit P9 is the order of the Matsyafed, granting the fixation of pay to the Junior Executives (Marketing) as per Exhibit P8 and Exhibit P10 is the redesignation of Junior Executives (Marketing) as Assistant General Managers.
10. The petitioners had, in O.P.No.32511 of 2002, merely claimed parity in pay with their admitted juniors. However, on the hierarchical status also having been altered, they were before this Court with the second writ petition [W.P.(C).No.27822 of 2006] challenging the Government Order, the consequent pay fixation as also the redesignation granted, respectively as per Exhibits P8, P9 and P10 in W.P.(C).No.27822 of 2006. In adjudicating the dispute, this Court has, on its board, two writ petitions, one claiming pay parity and the other challenging the pay revision based on which the pay parity was claimed earlier. The resolution of the dispute raised by the identical petitioners would necessarily result in one of the writ petitions being allowed and the other dismissed.
11. Placed in the aforesaid situation, the resolution of the dispute, would involve looking at the earlier orders passed by the Government granting revision of pay as on 01.07.1978 as also the consequent fixation. True, much water has flowed under the bridge and years have gone by, wherein the Junior Executives (Marketing) have drawn the higher pay and the petitioners too, were complacently waiting, for their pay parity to be approved. Even when the matter was taken up, it was submitted by all parties that the redesignation to the post of Assistant General Manager has not been made effective and, hence, a direction for effecting pay parity, as recommended by the Matsyafed itself, would suffice. Hence, this Court at the outset alluded to the age old phrase of the “fence eating the crop”.
12. Admittedly the 2nd respondent, Matsyafed, is reeling under accumulated losses; and the Government and the Matsyafed have filed counter affidavits resisting the claim for pay parity. What is essentially sought for is a “peg” to hang the “cloak” of responsibility. This Court should not act in convenience to the parties and an illegality definitely has to be looked at in the perspective of the larger interest of the State as also the public generally and particularly the fishermen; for whose welfare the Matsyafed is said to be constituted. Definitely the constitution of Matsyafed, in the co-operative sector is not to enable livelihood to its employees and its functions cannot also be reduced to, provision of periodic pay-revisions in tune with the rising price index. An illegality cannot be perpetrated merely for reason of a mistake having been committed in revising the pay scales of admitted juniors; by conferring the very same benefit to admitted seniors.
13. In resolving the issue placed before this Court, one has to look at the claim raised in the earlier writ petition and as to whether any binding directions were issued in the judgment passed in O.P.No.9503 of 1993. If positive directions are issued, nothing remains to be done; since then, this Court would be reviewing the earlier orders, which is not a permissible exercise. Primarily, the pay revision effected in 1978, if looked at in the proper perspective, would resolve the issue. It has to be specifically noticed that, in the year 1978 neither were the petitioners nor the respondents employed in the 2nd respondent; nor even the 2nd respondent was in existence. The claim raised is on the basis of the staff regulation, an extract of which is produced as Exhibit P8(a) in O.P.No.32511 of 2002. That was also the pivotal argument in O.P.No.9503 of 1993, where the classification of posts as indicated in Exhibit P8(a) was extracted in the Original Petition, as follows:-
“Cl:I Senior Executives: Those who are in the scale of pay the minimum of which is Rs.1800 and above.
Cl:II Executives: Those who are in the scale of pay the minimum of which is Rs.1400 and above, but below Rs.1800 Cl:III Junior Executives: Those who are in the scale of pay the minimum of which is Rs.1000 and above, but below Rs.1400 Cl:IV Supervisory: Those who are in the scale of pay the minimum of which is Rs.520 and above, but below Rs.1000 Subordinate Staff: Those who are in the scale of pay the minimum of which is Rs.280 and above, but below Rs.520”.
14. The primary contention was with respect to the classification of Junior Executives Class III. In O.P.No.9503 of 1993, it was contended that these staff regulations were made effective from 01.07.1985. In O.P.No.32511 of 2002, Exhibit P8(a) is said to be the regulation of 2001. So, it has to be assumed, as to the classification of posts, the regulation remained the same. In any event, the contention of the Junior Executives (Marketing) is that their designation would, as per the classification of posts, indicate that their scale should be one in which the minimum pay is Rs.1000/- and above, but below Rs.1400/-.
15. Essentially it has to be noticed that the classification of the posts and designation are two different concepts. Merely because a post is designated as “Junior Executives (Marketing)”, there is no warrant for an assumption that it would come under the classification of “Junior Executives”. What was intended by the classification of posts is to classify the employees of the Matsyafed, as Class I, Class II, Class III, Class IV and Subordinate Staff, in accordance with their pay scales. Hence, any employee who has a scale of pay, the minimum of which is Rs.1000/- but below Rs.1400/-, they would be classified as Junior Executives, whatever their designation be. Merely because the designation is Junior Executive (Marketing), it does not mean that they would be classified as “Class III-Junior Executives”. They could also be in the Supervisory category at Class IV.
16. Be that as it may, what is relevant for consideration is the revision effected in 1978, which has been highlighted in the earlier writ petition [O.P.No.9503/1993] as Exts.P7 and P8, produced therein:
Exhibit P7 produced in O.P.No.9503 of 1993:
“Existing scales showing rates of increments as per 1978 Pay Revision:
1) 280-5-340-6-400 (22 years)
2) 290-5-330-6-390-7-425 (23 years)
3) 300-6-360-7-402-8-450 (22 years)
4) 310-6-328-7-356-8-436-9-490 (23 years)
5) 330-8-410-9-455-10-515 (21 years)
6) 340-8-380-9-425-10-535 (21 years)
7) 350-10-460-12-580 (21 years)
8) 370-10-450-12-510-15-600 (19 years)
9) 390-12-438-13-490-15-685 (21 years)
10) 420-13-485-17-720 (20 years)
11) 350-15-650-16-730 (25 years)
12) 450-15-525-16-605-18-785 (20 years)
13) 470-16-550-18-730-20-830 (20 years)
14) 450-15-525-16-605-18-785-20-885 (25 years)
15) 520-18-700-20-800-25-900 (19 years)
16) 535-18-625-20-825-25-950 (20 years)
17) 570-20-670-25-920-30-1070 (20 years)
18) 600-20-660-25-860-30-1100 (19 years)
19) 650-25-850-30-1150 (18 years)
20) 700-25-800-30-890-35-1030-40-1270 (17 years)
21) 725-25-800-30-890-35-1030-40-1350 (19 years)
22) 750-30-990-40-1150-50-1450(18 years)
23) 800-30-830-40-950-50-1550 (16 years)
24) 910-40-950-50-1550 (13 years)
25) 975-50-1325-60-1625 (12 years)
26) 1125-60-1725(10 years)
27) 1200-60-1800 ( 10 years)
28) 1300-60-1600-75-1900 (9 years)
29) 1450-75-2050 (8years)
30) 1650-75-2175 (7 years)
31) 1800-75-2250 (6 years)
32) 2500-125/2-2750 (4 years)
Exhibit P8 produced in O.P.No.9503 of 1993:
STATEMENT SHOWING THE EXISTING SCALES AND CONRRESPONDING REVISED SCALES.
26) 1125-1725 } 21) 1600-2710
27) 1200-1800 22) 1950-2950
17. A conjoint reading of the above extracted, Exhibits P7 and P8, in the earlier writ petition, would clearly show that Exhibit P7 was the existing scale as on 1978; being the pre-revised scale of 1978. The right hand column in Exhibit P8 shows the revised scales as on 01.07.1978. The petitioners herein, who were Assistant Secretaries, were admittedly appointed in the scale of pay of Rs.1250-2500, which is shown as “pre-revised” in Exhibit P2. Exhibit P2 being of the year 1991, the pre-revised scale indicated therein is the revised scale of 1978. The next revision admittedly was in the year 1985; as is seen from Exhibit P12 in O.P.No.32511 of 2002, contemporaneous to the appointment of the petitioners; on deputation as Assistant Secretaries. The petitioners, as Assistant Secretaries, hence, were included at item No.18 in the revised pay of 1978 (Exhibit P8 - right-hand column). However, the Junior Executives (Marketing), appointed later to the petitioners, were given the scale of pay of Rs.650-1150, which is in the pre-revised scale of pay as on 1978. This definitely is an anomaly. That was the anomaly which should have been rectified by the Government. On rectification, the Government should have ideally fixed the scale of pay of Junior Executives (Marketing) at Rs.1100-2100, at item No.16, on the right-hand column in Exhibit P8. That would have satisfied the classification in the staff regulation and the Junior Executives (Marketing) as also the Assistant Secretaries would be categorized as “Class III-Junior Executives”, but in different scales of pay, since the Assistant Secretaries were holding a higher post than that of the Junior Executives (Marketing). It is in such identification of the appropriate scale of pay that the Government and the Matsyafed faltered.
18. The recommendation at Exhibit P7(a) in O.P.No.32511 of 2002 though seeks fixation of pay of Junior Executives (Marketing) as effective from 01.07.1978, indicates the following scales:
“1. 1125-60-1725 (10 years) 2. 1200-60-1800 (10 years)”
We do not find such a scale of pay in the pay revision, effective from 01.07.1978. Such scales are only available in the pre-revised scales of pay on the left hand column in the above extract, at item Nos.26 and 27. The Government while considering the recommendation made by the Matsyafed, fixed it at Rs.1125-1725; but on the pre-revised 1978 scale of pay. It was hence that the Junior Executives leapt over the petitioners gaining monetary advantage far in excess of what was actually due to them. The disposal of the earlier writ petition would not stand in the way of this Court interfering with either the recommendation of the Matsyafed or the consequent orders passed by the Government, since there is no authoritative pronouncement on that count in the earlier writ petition. The findings on merit in Exhibit P7 judgment was only with respect to the staff regulation being applicable and the Junior Executives, classified thereunder being not fixed in the appropriate scale of pay, the minimum of which should be Rs.1,000/-.
19. The anomaly caused in indicating the scales of pay of Junior Executives (Marketing) at the time of their initial appointment was noticed by this Court in Exhibit P7 judgment. The Court also negatived the contention of the official respondents that the Junior Executives (Marketing) cannot be granted a fixation of pay under the new staff regulation, since they were selected and appointed at a time when the new regulation had not come into force. Re-designation was permitted as per the staff regulation; but fixation of scales of pay was directed in accordance with the provisions of law that were applicable at the time when they were appointed. The recommendation of the Matsyafed was also directed to be considered. But, that is not to say that this Court approved or upheld the recommendation of the Matsyafed.
20. In rectifying the anomaly, the Junior Executives (Marketing) should have been ideally fixed at the pay scale of Rs.1100-2100, being the revised scale as on 01.07.1978. The recommendation of the Matsyafed also directed fixation of the Junior Executives (Marketing) as per the revised scales of pay made effective from 01.07.1978. However, the scales of pay proposed in the recommendation, were the pre-revised scales. The Government bestowed its attention only to the scales recommended and finding such scales to be those pre-existing as of 1978, fixation was granted in the scale of pay of Rs.1125-1725 as on 01.07.1978; thus entitling the petitioners in O.P.No.9503 of 1993 to be appointed in the revised scale of 1978 at a far higher range than that of the petitioners. Applying the revision of 1978, the Junior Executives (Marketing), leapt over the Assistant Secretaries, monetarily, on fixation of pay. This later anomaly definitely has to be rectified and on such rectification, the question of pay parity would not arise.
21. To sum up, the petitioners on their appointment were entitled to the revised scale of pay of 1978, being Rs.1250-2500 and the Junior Executives (Marketing) at the revised scales of 1978 at Rs.1100-2100. This would ameliorate the anomaly in status, pointed out by the petitioners and as on the date of appointment, the Junior Executives (Marketing) would be in a cadre lower to that of Assistant Secretaries; but both being included in “Class III” classification as “Junior Executives”. The staff regulations also would be satisfied insofar as the Junior Executives (Marketing) would have a minimum pay, at the scale applicable to them, above Rs.1000/-. In such circumstance, finding the pay parity claimed by the petitioners to be one created on the anomaly in the recommendation, made by the Matsyafed, as also in the approval granted by the Government, W.P.(C).No.32511 of 2002 would stand dismissed.
22. With respect to W.P.(C).No.27822 of 2006, the same would stand allowed and Exhibits P8 and P9 would stand set aside. The Government is directed to reconsider the issue on the basis of the clear directions issued herein above, i.e., fix the pay of the Junior Executives (Marketing) on the date of their appointment, analogous to the scale of pay of Rs.1100-2100, which is the scale applicable as per the revised pay scale of 1978. The consequent fixation of pay has also to be done by the Matsyafed. Any excess payment would also be recovered by the Matsyafed from respondents 5 to 8 in W.P.(C).No.27822 of 2006.
23. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents would in fact take a specific contention that they were highly qualified, being post-graduates in Fisheries when their appointments were made. The petitioners, on the other hand, were persons who were deputed from the Fisheries Department, who had been occupying, in the parent department, posts of Sub Inspector, Junior Superintendent and Technical Assistant. The credentials of the petitioners would indicate that they were lured into Matsyafed with promises of being conferred with pivotal positions and were eventually granted only the post of Junior Executives (Marketing), is the contention urged.
24. The mere fact of higher qualifications, cannot place the Junior Executives (Marketing), in a better position than the petitioners herein, since they had, with open eyes, accepted the appointment of Junior Executives (Marketing) in the scale of pay of Rs.650-1150. They would definitely be reserved a claim to correct the anomaly in their appointment orders with respect to the scale of pay. But they were never aggrieved by the petitioners being placed, above them, which, if at all, should have been taken up at the first instance, when they claimed revised fixation in O.P.No.9503 of 1993. The facts disclosed from the records indicate that the pay scale was fixed at the time of the appointment of the petitioners and the party respondents as per the revised scales of 1978. In the case of the party respondents, the scale shown was that of the pre-revised scale of 1978, which alone was the mistake, which could have been rectified as per Exhibit P7 judgment.
25. Such claim for revision of pay cannot also, confer on them, the right to claim higher designation when admittedly they were appointed to posts, junior to that of the petitioners herein and at a lower scale of pay. The petitioners are also seen to have been appointed through a competitive examination and interview conducted by an independent agency. That too an independent agency of the State, and their status in the parent department cannot regulate their status in the Matsyafed. The factum of the petitioners having been absorbed at a date later to the joining of the Junior Executives (Marketing), also cannot detract from their having a higher status in the Matsyafed. Their initial appointment was on deputation which enabled retention of lien in their posts in the parent Department. Their absorption after five years, was on termination of such lien with the parent department. The incidence of service would definitely relate back to the date of their initial appointment. Exhibit P10 also, hence, would stand set aside.
26. One another aspect pointed out by the party respondents is that they have been drawing the higher pay right from the year 2002 and any orders to seek refund of the excess amounts paid would prejudice them to no end. The contention urged is that they merely urged a claim and if at all the same was allowed by reason of a mistake by the State or Matsyafed, their employer; that cannot prejudice them. The party respondents contend that they were innocent of the mistake, if any, and this Court should not order refund.
27. Considering the conflict in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to refund of excess payments, a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [(2014) 8 SCC 883] upheld the view taken by a Bench in Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand [(2012) 8 SCC 417]. Paragraph 14 of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) is extracted hereunder:
“14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as 'taxpayers' money' which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by t he government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment”.
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) also stated so in paragraph 8:
“8. In our view, the law laid down in Chandi Prasad Uniyal case [(2012) 8 SCC 417], no way conflicts with the observations made by this Court in the other two cases. In those decisions, directions were issued in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, but in the subsequent decision this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, in laying down the law had dismissed the petition of the employee. This Court in a number of cases had battled with tracing the contours of the provisions in Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India. Distinctively, although the words employed under the two aforesaid provisions speak of the powers of this Court, the former vest a plenary jurisdiction in the Supreme Court in the matter of entertaining and hearing of appeals by granting special leave against any judgment or order made by a Court or Tribunal in any cause or matter. The powers are plenary to the extent that they are paramount to the limitations under the specific provisions for appeal contained in the Constitution or other laws. Article 142 of the Constitution of India, on the other hand is a step ahead of the powers envisaged under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It is the exercise of jurisdiction to pass such enforceable decree or order as is necessary for doing “complete justice” in any cause or matter”.
29. Hence, the power exercised by the Supreme Court to interdict recovery, in the other two cases, was declared as one invoked under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstance, it may not be proper for this Court to interdict recovery, having found that the revision of scales of pay granted to the Junior Executives (Marketing) were not in accordance with the revised pay scales nor in accordance with the recommendation of the Matsyafed. However, the Matsyafed would be entitled to pass orders deferring the refund to a period by granting easy instalments in repaying the excess amounts directed to be refunded. The Government shall pass orders in accordance with this judgment within two months from today and the Matsyafed within a month thereafter, fixing the pay scale of the Junior Executives (Marketing), as indicated herein.
Ordered accordingly. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
vku/-
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )