DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 888, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 888 : 2023 INSC 1048
888
CASE DETAILS
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No.7747 of 2012)
NOVEMBER 30, 2023
[HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the legality of the order 
passed by the High Court, rejecting the prayer made by the appellants-
Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer for grant of the same pay-scale and perquisites 
as had been granted to the respondent No.4-Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer 
(Medicine).
Service Law – Pay scale – Single post of same cadre – One oﬃ  cer 
given higher pay scale than the other – Correctness:
Held: If governed by the same set of Rules, a single post of the 
same cadre could not have been isolated and granted a higher pay scale by 
merely considering the qualiﬁ cations prescribed for the post – On facts, 
representations made by the appellants-Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer claiming 
that the respondent No. 4-Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) having 
been granted a higher pay scale along with Non Practicing Allowance-NPA, 
though not practising as a doctor, they were also entitled to the same as they 
were appointed on the same post, governed by the same Rules and were 
discharging the same duties – There is no justiﬁ cation to grant same scale-
higher pay scale to the appellants as was generously and wrongly granted 
to the respondent No. 4 alongwith the NPA by treating him equal to the 
Medical Oﬃ  cer working in the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare – 
Authorities were hand in gloves with the respondent No. 4 to somehow grant 
him a higher pay scale and repeatedly action was taken in that direction – 
Favouritism shown to the respondent No. 4 is evident from the facts – There 
was no justiﬁ cation for grant of higher pay scale to the respondent No. 4 
with eﬀ ect from the date of his initial appointment – Same was illegal and
889
cannot withstand in judicial scrutiny – Furthermore, without there being any 
amendment in the Rules, the post of Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) 
was declared ex-cadre and the NPA granted to the respondent No. 4, though 
he was not practising as a doctor, was withdrawn – Thus, the order justifying 
the beneﬁ ts granted to respondent No. 4 set aside – Appellants not entitled to 
higher pay scales as were granted to respondent No. 4 – Assistant Scientiﬁ c 
Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) Rules, 2014 – Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) Rules, 
2014 – Central Hindi Directorate (Research Assistant) Recruitment Rules, 
1980. [Para 42, 53-59].
Service law – Grant of undue beneﬁ ts to the employee-Assistant 
Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) – Correctness:
Held: Respondent No. 4-Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) was 
unjustiﬁ ably paid salary in the higher pay scale - One option could be that 
whatever had been paid to him till date, be left as such and his pay could 
be directed to be re-ﬁ xed from a future date, however, having regard to the 
level of the post and the manner in which he was extended special treatment 
at every step and was granted higher pay scale, said course is not adopted as 
this is not a case of any bonaﬁ de error – It was a well-planned and deliberate 
infraction – Thus, issuance of direction for recovery of the excess amount 
paid to the respondent No. 4, and/or from the oﬃ  cer(s), directly involved 
in the decision-making process of granting undue
beneﬁ t to the respondent 
No.4 – Both to be made equally liable to reimburse the exchequer for the 
amount illegally disbursed to the respondent No.4 – Exchequer should not 
be made to suﬀ er on that account and either of two have to make good that 
loss of undue beneﬁ t granted to the respondent No. 4. [Para 60]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
D.S. Parvathamma v. A. Srinivasan (2003) 4 SCC 705 : [2003] 3 SCR 
197; A.K. Dass v. National Federation of Cooperative Sugar Factories Ltd. 
and others (1994) 2 SCC 520; Union of India and others v. M.V. Mohanan 
Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421 : [2020] 7 SCR 851; Punjab State Power Corporation 
Limited and another v. Bal Krishan Sharma and others (2022) 1 SCC 322; 
Ajit Kumar Bhuyan and others v. Debajit Das and others (2019) 12 SCC 
275 : [2018] 13 SCR 1012 – referred to.
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS
890 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7747 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2011 of the High Court of 
Delhi at New Delhi in WP No.3791 of 2011.
Appearances:
Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Somesh Chandra Jha, Ms. Yashika Sharma, 
Ms. Madhu Sharan, Somesh Chandra Jha, Ms. Pyoli, Amartya A. Sharan, 
Ms. Bhavya Pande, Mayank Gautam, Advs. for the Appellants.
Balbir Singh, ASG, Ms. Seema Bengani, Gurmeet Singh Makker, 
K Parameshwaran, Ms. Priyanka Das, Gautam Bharadwaj, Pratyush 
Shrivastava, Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari, Mritunjay Kumar Sinha, 
Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. The present appeal questions the legality of the order1 passed by the 
High Court2, vide which the orders3 passed by the Tribunal4 were upheld by 
the Division Bench of the High Court.
FACTS
2. The appellant No.1 joined the Commission for Scientiﬁ c and 
Technical Terminology5 as a Research Assistant (later redesignated as 
Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer) on 03.01.1990. The recruitment was made in 
1 
Dated 15.07.2011 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3791 of 2011
2 
High Court of Delhi
3 
Dated 01.06.2010 in O.A.No.1762/2010 and Dated 03.08.2010 in Review Application 
No.203/2010
4 
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
5 
Hereinafter referred to as ‘CSTT’.
891
terms of the Central Hindi Directorate (Research Assistant) Recruitment 
Rules, 19806. 
3. The 1980 Rules were amended in the year 1993 providing for 
educational qualiﬁ cations and experience required for the post of Research 
Assistant in diﬀ erent subjects including medicine. 
4. On 02.12.1994, an advertisement was issued by the Union Public 
Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Research Assistants 
(Economics), (Medicine) and (Electronics) in CSTT. The advertisement 
clearly provided the duties of the post namely: the evolution of terminology, 
preparation of deﬁ nitional dictionaries and allied work. 
5. The appellants No.2 to 6 joined CSTT as Research Assistants on 
various dates as detailed below:
Sr. No.
Name of the Oﬃ  cer/Discipline 
Date of Joining
2
M.L. Meena (Civil Engg.)
30.11.1995
3
A.N. Selwatkar (Zoology)
01.01.1996
4
Dr. B.K. Singh (Physics)
21.12.1995
5
Deepak Kumar (Comp. Sc.)
28.11.1996
6
S.K. Chaudhary (Eix.Engg.)
06.02.1997
6. On 20.05.1997, the appellant No.1 was promoted to the post of 
Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer.
7. The respondent No.4 joined CSTT as a Research Assistant 
(Medicine) on 18.01.1999. Both the appellants as well as the respondent No.4 
belong to the same cadre. A common seniority list of Research Assistants, as 
on 28.02.1999 was prepared and circulated on 23.03.1999. In the aforesaid 
seniority list, the appellants No.2 to 6 were shown at Serial No(s). 3, 5, 6, 8 
and 9, respectively, whereas respondent no.4 was shown at
Serial No.13. The 
name of appellant no.1 was not in the seniority list of Research Assistants as 
he had already been promoted to the post of Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer on 20.05.1997.
8. Vide order dated 20.07.2000, various posts in the CSTT were 
redesignated. As a result, the post of Research Assistant was redesignated as 
6 
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1980 Rules’
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
892 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer, whereas the post of Assistant Education Oﬃ  cer 
was redesignated as Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer.
9. On 18.10.2000, the respondent No.4 submitted representation for 
upgradation of his pay-scale. However, the same was rejected vide order 
dated 26.06.2001/03.07.2001.
10. On diﬀ erent dates from 2002 to 2006, the appellants No.2 to 6 
were promoted as Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cers.
11. On 12.06.2005, the respondent No.4 left CSTT to join as Ayurvedic 
Physician, in the Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicine & Homeopathy, 
Puducherry. On 06.09.2005, he joined as Medical Oﬃ  cer (Ayurveda) in the 
Directorate of Daman and Diu Medical & Health Services and thereafter 
on 30.01.2006, he joined the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and 
Siddha7, New Delhi, an autonomous body. All these posts were in the pay 
scale of ₹8000-13500.
12. On 13.12.2006 an order was issued by the Directorate8 upgrading 
the scale of pay of the respondent No.4 from ₹6500-10500 to ₹8000-13500. 
In the aforesaid order, reference was made to para 52.33 of the report of 
the Commission9, which dealt with the pay scales of doctors. The post of 
Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) was equated with that of a doctor. 
Even though the respondent No.4 was not practising as a doctor in CSTT, 
he was granted higher pay-scale. He also got Non-Practising Allowance 
(‘NPA’). Revision of pay was made w.e.f. 18.01.1999, i.e., the date of his
joining.
13. Immediately after passing of the aforesaid order and ﬁ nding that 
it may be illegal to grant higher pay-scale to one of the oﬃ  cers belonging 
to the same cadre, governed by the same Rules another order was passed 
by the Directorate on 20.04.2007, declaring the post of Assistant Scientiﬁ c 
Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) to be an ex-cadre post, in view of the grant of upgraded 
pay-scale to the respondent No.4.
7 
Hereinafter referred to as CCRAS. 
8 
Central Hindi Directorate, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of 
Secondary and Higher Education.
9 
Fifth Central Pay Commission Report.
893
14. Representations were made by the appellants for grant of the same 
pay-scale and perquisites as had been granted to the respondent No.4, in view 
of the fact that they were governed by the same set of Rules and discharging 
the same duties. As the prayer made by them was not accepted, an Original 
Application10 was ﬁ led by the appellants before the Tribunal11. However, 
the same was permitted to be withdrawn by the Tribunal on 10.08.2009 
with liberty to the appellants to ﬁ le a comprehensive representation before 
the competent authority. 
15. On 04.09.2009 a comprehensive representation was ﬁ led by the 
appellant No.1, which was rejected by the Chairman, CSTT vide order 
dated 04.01.2010, on the ground that the post in-question, namely, Assistant 
Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) had been declared as an ex-cadre post, thus 
there could not be any equation of pay-scale. 
16. Another application12 was ﬁ led by the appellants before the 
Tribunal. However, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.03.2010, 
with liberty to ﬁ le a fresh application challenging the order dated 04.01.2010 
because the same was not impugned in the aforesaid application.
17. Yet another Original Application13 was ﬁ led by the appellants 
impugning the order dated 04.01.2010. The aforesaid application 
was dismissed by the Tribunal on 01.06.2010. Thereafter, the Review 
Application14 in the same Original Application ﬁ led by the appellants was 
also dismissed by the Tribunal on 03.08.2010.
18. Being aggrieved, Writ Petition was ﬁ led by the appellants before 
the High Court. However, the same was dismissed by the Division Bench 
of the High Court. The aforesaid order is impugned before this Court.
ARGUMENTS
19. The argument raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants 
is that the initial recruitment of the appellants as well as the respondent 
10 O.A. No.2443 of 2008
11 Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
12 O.A.No.874 of 2010
13 O.A. No.1762 of 2010.
14 R. A.No.203 of 2010 in O.A.1762 of 2010
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
No.4 was made under the 1980 Rules. It was in terms of the qualiﬁ cations 
prescribed in the 1980 Rules. It is not a matter of dispute that the respondent 
No.4 was also recruited as a Research Assistant (later redesignated as 
Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer), just as the appellants were. It is also not a matter 
of dispute that all the Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cers were discharging the same 
duties. They had qualiﬁ cations in diﬀ erent subjects corresponding to their 
posts. The respondent No.4 was not practising medicine. The Commission 
made recommendations for revision of pay scales of various categories of 
employees working in the Government Sector. Para 52.33 of the report of 
the Commission, reliance on which was placed upon by the Directorate in 
its order dated 13.12.2006, was pertaining to doctors working with Indian 
Systems of Medicine & Homeopathy15. The respondent No.4 was given 
parity with General Duty Oﬃ  cer (GDO) of Central Health Services. In 
fact, the pay scales of employees working in CSTT was dealt with in paras 
71.15 to 71.17 thereof.
 20. It was submitted that the aforesaid order was passed, when the 
respondent no.4 was not even in service with CSTT, as he was on deputation 
to CCRAS, New Delhi. Immediately, after the aforesaid order was passed, 
the respondent No.4 joined back CSTT on 23.01.2007. The Commission 
recommended grant of parity to physicians of ISM&H/GDOs. In fact, they 
were all working as
medical oﬃ  cers, which had no comparison with the 
duties being discharged by the respondent no.4. 
21. In support of the argument that the appellants as well as the 
respondent No.4 were discharging the same duties and their job proﬁ le 
was inter-changeable, reference was made to the order dated 08.09.2021 
issued by CSTT whereby the respondent No.4 was assigned the duty to 
prepare separate glossary in ‘engineering graphics’. Whereas by the same 
order, the appellants no.1 to 6 were also assigned duties to prepare separate 
glossaries i.e. ‘workshop practice lab manual’; ‘engineering environmental 
science’; Physics-1; Physics-2; ‘programme of problem solving’ and ‘basic 
electrical engineering’ respectively. Reference was also made to the order 
dated 01.11.2021 passed by CSTT. The same is extracted below:
15 Hereinafter referred to as ‘ISM&H’.
895
Sr. 
No.
Name
Name of the State 
English-
Hindi-
Regional 
Language
Time
2.
Dr.P.N.Shukla, 
A.D 
Andhra Pradesh
Telugu
Will submit 
Work 
Progress 
Report in the 
last week of 
every month
3.
Shri Mohan Lal 
Veena
A.D.
Tamil Nadu/
Puducherry
Tamil
-do-
5.
Dr. Ashok N. 
Selvetkar, 
A. D.
Punjab
Punjabi
-do-
6.
Dr. Brajesh 
Kumar Singh, 
A.D.
West Bengal
Bangla
-do-
7.
Shri Deepak 
Kumar 
A.D.
Orissa
Oriya
-do-
8.
Shri Shiv Kumar 
Choudhary, A.D.
Gujarat 
Gujarati
-do-
10.
Dr. BhimSen 
Behera, Sr. Sc. 
Oﬃ  cer
(Medical Science)
Uttar Pradesh
Urdu
-do-
22. On 07.07.2017, an Oﬃ  ce Memorandum was issued by the 
Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, whereby it was stated 
that NPA was to be granted only to the employees holding a clinical post. It 
was argued that the illegality in grant of scale especially, the non-practicing 
allowance (NPA) granted to the respondent No.4 having come to the notice 
of the authorities, an order was passed by Chairman, CSTT in compliance 
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
896 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
of the aforesaid OM on 26.07.2017, withdrawing the NPA given to the 
respondent No. 4 w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid 
order, respondent No. 4 had submitted a representation to Chairman, 
CSTT on 27.07.2017, response whereto was given by the Chairman, 
CSTT on 21.08.2017. The same was challenged by the respondent No.4 
by ﬁ ling an Original Application16, which was dismissed by the Tribunal 
vide order dated 31.07.2019. The stand taken by the Government in the 
aforesaid case was that the respondent No.4 was working on the post of 
Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) in CSTT and the duties assigned were 
evolution of Technical Terminology and related work only and no clinical 
duties were assigned to him. As for the doctors working in the Ministry of 
Health and Ministry of AYUSH, they were discharging clinical duties and 
since they were barred from private practice, NPA was granted to them. 
As regards further status of the case, learned counsel for the respondent 
No.4 submitted that the same was challenged by ﬁ ling W.P.(C) No.12660 
of 2019 in the High Court, which was disposed of as withdrawn vide order 
dated 15.03.2023 with liberty to the respondent No.4 to ﬁ le a representation 
before the competent authority.
23. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the arguments raised by the learned 
senior counsel for the appellants are that the respondent no.4 could not have 
been taken back in service in CSTT, after
he had served on diﬀ erent posts 
in various departments in the Directorate of Medical and Health Services, 
Daman and Diu, followed by the Directorate of ISM&H, Puducherry and 
thereafter in the CCRAS, New Delhi, an autonomous body, as his lien on 
the post had already been lost. Secondly, grant of higher pay-scale to the 
respondent no.4 was totally illegal. The post of which the pay-scale was 
granted to the respondent No.4, was of doctors, who were discharging 
clinical duties in hospitals. The case of the respondent No.4 was not similar. 
In fact, a wrong paragraph from the recommendations of the Commission 
was relied upon to grant him beneﬁ t. Thirdly, one of the oﬃ  cers recruited 
and working in the same cadre and governed by the same Rules, was made 
ex-cadre without there being any legal justiﬁ cation therefor and without 
following the due process of law. Even in the order creating a separate 
16 O.A. No.3062 of 2017
897
cadre for the respondent No.4, the only reason assigned was that he had 
been granted a higher pay-scale. The prayer made by the appellants is 
that the orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal be set aside, 
the prayers made by the appellants in the Application17 ﬁ led before the 
Tribunal be granted and as a consequence thereof, orders dated 13.12.2006 
and 20.04.2007 issued by the Directorate be set aside or in the alternative, 
the appellants being governed by the same set of Rules and discharging the 
same functions, be granted the same pay-scales and allowances as has been 
granted to the respondent No.4. 
24. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India, submitted 
that after being selected as an Ayurvedic Physician in Directorate of 
ISM&H, Government of Puducherry, in the pay scale of ₹8000-13500, the 
respondent No.4 was relieved from CSTT w.e.f. 10.06.2005. However, his 
lien was maintained. After being relieved from the D irectorate of ISM&H, 
Puducherry on 21.07.2005, respondent NO. 4 joined back in CSTT on 
22.07.2005. He was again relieved on 05.09.2005 as he was selected as a 
Medical Oﬃ  cer (Ayurveda) in the Directorate of Daman and Diu, Medical 
and Health Services in the pay scale of ₹8000-13500. Even at that time, his 
lien was maintained in the CSTT. While in service in the Administration of 
Daman and Diu, the respondent no.4 applied for a No Objection Certiﬁ cate 
and the same was granted to him on 18.11.2005 by CSTT to appear in the
interview to be held on 19.11.2005, for the post of Research Oﬃ  cer in 
CCRAS, New Delhi. At that time, he was serving with the Administration of 
Daman and Diu. After he was selected as a Research Oﬃ  cer in the CCRAS, 
he sought permission from CSTT to join CCRAS by 30.01.2006. He was 
relieved from the post of Medical Oﬃ  cer (Ayurveda) in the Administration 
of Daman and Diu w.e.f. 30.01.2006 and on the same day he joined in CSTT. 
Further, he was relieved on the same day forenoon to join as Research Oﬃ  cer 
in CCRAS in the pay scale of ₹8000-13500. On the very same day, he made 
a request for maintenance of his lien in the CSTT. Pertinently, respondent 
No.4 got himself relieved from CCRAS in the afternoon on 17.01.2007 and 
joined at CSTT on 23.01.2007, in the forenoon.
17 O.A.No.874 of 2010
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
898 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
25. As regards grant of higher pay scale to the respondent No.4, it 
was submitted that a representation was made by him relying upon the 
recommendations of the Commission with reference to the qualiﬁ cation 
held by him and the duties being discharged. The matter was examined by 
the competent authority at diﬀ erent levels. It was granted approval by the 
Ministry of Finance as well. Considering the merit in the representation 
made by the respondent No.4, vide order dated 13.12.2006, the Directorate 
granted him the pay scale of ₹8000-13500 w.e.f. 18.01.1999. Subsequently, 
considering the fact that there was some error in the order, a later order was 
passed by the Directorate on 20.04.2007, in continuation to the earlier order 
dated 13.12.2006, as a result whereof the post on which the respondent 
no.4 was working, was declared ex-cadre. It was submitted that grant of a 
higher pay scale or declaration of a post as ex cadre could be done by way 
of an executive order which was passed with the approval of the competent 
authority. Learned counsel further submitted that the post on which the 
respondent No.4 is working, or the qualiﬁ cation required for the same are not 
equal to the qualiﬁ cations required for the other post of Assistant Scientiﬁ c 
Oﬃ  cer/Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer. This was the reason for grant of a higher pay scale 
to the respondent No.4.
26. In support of her arguments, learned counsel for the Union of 
India
relied upon the judgment of this Court in D.S. Parvathamma v. 
A. Srinivasan18.
27. On his part, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 referred to 
the 1980 Rules as amended by the Notiﬁ cation F. No. 2-2/89-Admn., to 
Central Hindi Directorate, (Research Assistant) Recruitment Amendment 
Rules 1993. He submitted that in the schedule attached to the 1980 Rules, 
there are 74 posts of Research Assistants which were bifurcated as 45 
for Hindi, 4 for regional languages, 25 for diﬀ erent subjects including 
Medicine. Essential qualiﬁ cations for diﬀ erent posts have been prescribed 
in the aforesaid Rules. For some posts Master’s Degree in subjects is 
required, whereas for the post requiring knowledge of engineering, the 
qualiﬁ cation required is only Diploma. For the post of Research Assistant 
(Medicine) degree in integrated system of Indian Medicine (Bachelor of 
18 (2003) 4 SCC 705
899
Indian Medicine & Surgery/ Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery) 
or Ayurveda/Pharmacy or equivalent from a recognized university or 
board is required. It is only the post of Research Assistant (Medicine) 
that a professional degree was required and that was not so for any other 
post. Hence, the argument advanced was that all these posts could not 
possibly be equated. As injustice had been caused to the respondent No. 
4, it was corrected.
28. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 referred to the 
recommendations made by the Commission to submit that the pay scale to 
which the respondent No.4 is entitled, has to be the same as granted to the 
other oﬃ  cers working with the Central Government, having the professional 
qualiﬁ cation of a degree in ISM&H. He further submitted that the aforesaid 
recommendations mentioned that in the Fourth Central Pay Commission, the 
scale of pay of doctors shall be taken as ₹2200-4000 and a corresponding 
pay scale recommended by the Commission should have been granted to 
the respondent No.4. In terms of the Central Civil Services Rules 1997, as 
per the First Schedule, Part-A, the corresponding scale of ₹2200-4000 was 
8000-13500. A representation dated 18.10.2000 was made by the respondent 
No.4 for grant of higher pay scale. The matter was examined at diﬀ erent 
levels and ﬁ nally it was recommended that the respondent No.4 should be 
granted the same. 
29. Vide order dated 20.07.2000, issued by the Directorate, the posts
of Research Assistant and Assistant Education Oﬃ  cer in the CSTT were 
redesignated and upgraded scale of pay was granted. The post of Research 
Assistant was redesignated as Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer with pay scale of 
₹6500-200-10500; Assistant Education Oﬃ  cer was redesignated as Scientiﬁ c 
Oﬃ  cer with pay scale of ₹7500-250-12000. Scales were given eﬀ ect from 
01.01.1996. Vide order dated 13.12.2006, pay scale of ₹8000-13500 was 
granted to the Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) plus NPA w.e.f. 
18.01.1999 as against the existing pay-scale ₹6500-10500. It was speciﬁ cally 
mentioned therein that a degree in ISM&H is an essential qualiﬁ cation for 
the post of Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine). As the respondent No.4 
was the only Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) working in CSTT, a 
copy thereof was endorsed to him as well. 
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
900 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
30. Learned counsel referred to an order of the Directorate dated 
20.04.2007, issued in continuation of the earlier order dated 13.12.2006, 
clarifying inter-alia that the post of Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) 
in CSTT which was granted the upgraded pay scale of ₹8000-13500 plus 
NPA, will be an ex-cadre post.
31. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 then referred to the 
report of the Sixth Central Pay Commission submitted in March 2008 with 
reference to the post of Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) in CSTT. 
He pointed out that as there were no promotional avenues for the post in 
question, Assured Career Promotion Scheme was recommended to alleviate 
the problem of stagnation. The post in future was recommended to be ﬁ lled 
on a contractual basis. It was also recommended that the administrative 
machinery may consider revising the designation of the post appropriately 
to avoid any confusion vis-à-vis other similarly designated posts. The 
recommendations made by the Sixth Central Pay Commission were accepted 
by the Government. 
32. Vide two separate Notiﬁ cations issued by the Ministry of Human 
Resource Development dated 17.02.2014, two sets of Rules were notiﬁ ed 
by the Government. The ﬁ rst being titled as ‘The Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer 
(Medicine) Rules, 201419 providing for 24 posts in diﬀ erent subjects with a 
pay scale of ₹9300-34800 plus Grade Pay ₹4600. Vide separate Notiﬁ cation, 
Rules
titled as ‘The Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) Rules, 201420 were 
notiﬁ ed providing for a single post of Senior Medical Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) in 
the pay scale ₹15600-39100 plus Grade Pay ₹5400.
33. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 further referred to an 
order dated 26.08.2013, issued by the Department of Higher Education, 
MHRD, Government of India directing redesignation of the post of Assistant 
Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) in the pay scale ₹8000-13500 plus NPA as that 
of Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine).
19 Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine), Commission for Scientiﬁ c and Technical 
Terminology, New Delhi, Recruitment Rules, 2014.
20 Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine), Commission for Scientiﬁ c and Technical 
Terminology, New Delhi, Recruitment Rules, 2014.
901
34. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent 
no.4 relied upon the judgments of this Court in A.K. Dass v. National 
Federation of Cooperative Sugar Factories Ltd. and others21, Union 
of India and others v. M.V. Mohanan Nair22, and Punjab State Power 
Corporation Limited and another v. Bal Krishan Sharma and others23.
35. In response, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted 
that para 52 of the recommendations made by the Commission pertained to 
the oﬃ  cers possessing a degree in ISM&H and working with the Ministry 
of Health and Family Welfare on Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ posts. Respondent 
No.4 may have the same qualiﬁ cation, but he was not in the Health 
Department, practicing as a doctor. She further submitted that before the 
representation made by the respondent No.4 was accepted, earlier thereto, 
similar representations made by him were rejected. She further referred to 
the stand taken by the Union of India before the Tribunal in a challenge 
made by the respondent No.4 to the withdrawal of non-practicing allowance 
granted to him earlier. It was stated that the respondent No.4 is not governed 
by the (Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine), Commission for Scientiﬁ c and 
Technical Terminology, New Delhi, Recruitment Rules, 2014) as those Rules 
are meant for fresh direct recruitment. Further, the stand was that the Oﬃ  ce 
Memorandum dated 07.07.2017 is not applicable to the respondent No. 4 and 
therefore, the subsequent order of
the Chairman, CSTT dated 26.07.2017 
withdrawing NPA granted to the respondent No. 4 was non-est in the eyes 
of law. She referred to the judgment of this Court in Ajit Kumar Bhuyan 
and others v. Debajit Das and others24, in support of her arguments.
36. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 
relevant referred record.
37. Before we proceed to deal with the respective arguments raised by 
learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to sum up the facts 
of the case in a chronological order. 
21 (1994) 2 SCC 520.
22 (2020) 5 SCC 421.
23 
(2022) 1 SCC 322
24 (2019) 12 SCC 275
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
902 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
37.1 The appellants No.2 to 6 joined CSTT as Research Assistants on 
various dates as detailed below:
Sl. No.
Name of the Oﬃ  cer/Discipline 
Date of Joining
2
M.L. Meena (Civil Engg.)
30.11.1995
3
A.N. Selwatkar (Zoology)
01.01.1996
4
Dr. B.K. Singh (Physics)
21.12.1995
5
Deepak Kumar (Comp. Sc.)
28.11.1996
6
S.K. Chaudhary (Eix.Engg.)
06.02.1997
37.2
18.01.1999
Respondent No. 4 joined CSTT as a 
Research Assistant in the pay scale 
of ₹6500-10500.
37.3
20.7.2000
The post of Research Assistant was 
re-designated as that of Assistant 
Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer.
37.4
18.10.2000
Respondent No. 4 submitted a 
representation for upgradation 
of his pay, which was rejected. 
Subsequent representations ﬁ led by 
the respondent No. 4 for upgradation 
of his pay were also rejected.
37.5
08.06.2005
Respondent No. 4 was relieved by 
the CSTT to enable him to join the 
Directorate of ISM&H, Puducherry 
as a Ayurvedic Physician.
37.6
12.6.2005
Respondent No. 4 joined the 
Directorate of ISM&H, Puducherry 
as a Ayurvedic Physician in the pay 
scale of 8000-275-13500.
37.7
21.07.2005
Respondent No.4 was relieved 
by the Directorate of ISM&H, 
Puduchery.
37.8
22.07.2005
Respondent No. 4 joined back in 
CSTT, Delhi.
903
37.9
05.09.2005
Respondent No. 4 was relieved by 
the CSTT, Delhi.
37.10
06.09.2005
Respondent No. 4 joined as a 
Medical Officer (Ayurveda) in 
the Directorate of Daman & Diu, 
Medical and Health Services in the 
pay scale of ₹8000-275-13500. 
37.11
28.01.2006
Respondent No. 4 was relieved 
by the Directorate of Daman & 
Diu, Medical & Health Services as 
Medical Oﬃ  cer (Ayurveda) in the 
pay scale of 8000-275-13500.
37.12
30.01.2006.
Respondent No. 4 rejoined CSTT, 
Delhi.
On the same day, respondent No. 4 
was relieved by the CSTT and he 
joined CCRAS, Delhi as a Research 
Oﬃ  cer (Ayurveda) in the afternoon 
in the pay scale of 8000-275-13500.
37.13
13.12.2006
Upgradation of pay was granted 
to the respondent No. 4. w.e.f. 
18.01.1999. The pay scale of the 
respondent No. 4 was upgraded 
from 6,500-10,500 to 8,000-13,500 
plus NPA.
37.14
17.01.2007
Respondent No. 4 was relieved 
from the CCRAS, Delhi.
37.15
23.01.2007
Respondent No. 4 joined the CCST 
as Assistant Scientific Officer 
(Medicine).
37.16
20.04.2007
Post of Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer 
(Medicine) was declared as an ex-
cadre post. 
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
904 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
37.17
14.08.2008 
Representation was made by the 
appellants for grant of the same 
pay scale as was granted to the 
respondent No. 4, as they belonged 
to the same cadre.
37.18
2008
The representation filed by the 
appellants was not accepted. OA 
No. 2443 of 2008 was ﬁ led by the 
appellants seeking direction to the 
oﬃ  cial respondents for grant of the 
same pay scale, as was granted to 
the respondent No. 4.
37.19
10.08.2009
The OA ﬁ led by the appellants was 
withdrawn with liberty to them 
to ﬁ le a representation before the 
competent authority.
37.20
04.09.2009
A comprehensive representation 
was made by the appellant No. 1. 
OA No. 874 of 2010 was ﬁ led by 
the appellants.
37.21
04.01.2010
The aforesaid representation was 
rejected stating that the post of the 
respondent No. 4 had been declared 
as an ex-cadre post, hence, equation 
of pay is not possible.
37.22
17.03.2010.
The aforesaid OA was dismissed 
as withdrawn with liberty to the 
appellants to ﬁ le a fresh application 
challenging the order dated 
04.01.2010.
37.23
2010
OA No. 1762 of 2010 was ﬁ led by 
the appellants impugning the order 
dated 4.01.2010.
37.24
01.06.2010
The aforesaid OA was dismissed by 
the Tribunal.
905
37.25
03.08.2010
Review Application No. 203 of 
2010 against the order of the 
Tribunal dated 01.06.2010 was 
also dismissed.
37.26
17.05.2011
A writ petition was ﬁ led before the 
High Court of Delhi challenging 
the orders dated 01.06.2010 and 
03.08.2010.
37.27
15.07.2011
The said writ petition was dismissed 
by the High Court. It is the aforesaid 
order that has been impugned 
before this Court.
38. Following were the developments during the pendency of the 
matter before this Court:
38.1
26.07.2017 
NPA granted to the respondent No. 
4 was withdrawn.
OA No. 3062 of 2017 was ﬁ led by 
respondent No. 4 impugning the 
order of withdrawal of NPA.
38.2 
31.07.2019
The aforesaid OA filed by the 
respondent No. 4 was dismissed by 
the Tribunal.
38.3
2019
Writ Petition No. 12260 of 2019 
was ﬁ led by the respondent No. 
4 challenging the order dated 
31.7.2019, passed by the Tribunal.
38.4
15.02.2023
The aforesaid writ petition was 
disposed of granting liberty to 
the respondent No. 4 to make a 
representation against withdrawal 
of NPA.
39. From a perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that 
immediately after joining as a Research Assistant, the respondent No. 4 
started making representations for upgradation of his pay scale, which 
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
was rejected a number of times. Apparently, being a favourite employee, 
he started the process of going on deputation to diﬀ erent organisations. 
On three occasions, he was granted NOC and was selected also. While 
working at the CSTT, the respondent No. 4 was getting pay in the scale 
of ₹6500-10500, but on deputation, the pay scale was ₹8000-13500. It 
appears that the sole object of going on deputation was to get a higher 
pay scale. 
40. From the aforesaid conduct of the respondent No. 4, it is evident 
that despite being selected as a Research Assistant [re-designated as 
Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine)], he was not interested to serve 
his parent organisation but was more interested in getting a higher pay 
scale while going on deputation. He came back to his parent department 
on 23.01.2007, only after the post on which he was working with the 
CSTT was granted a higher pay scale of ₹8,000-13,500, from the date of 
his appointment. Even the recommendations of the Commission which 
were relied upon to give a higher pay scale to the respondent No. 4, were 
not strictly applicable to him. 
41. The chain of events which happened thereafter is more interesting. 
Representations were made by the appellants claiming that the respondent 
No. 4 having been granted a higher pay scale along with NPA, though 
not practising as a doctor, they were also entitled to the same as they 
were appointed on the same post, governed by
the same Rules and were 
discharging the same duties. The nomenclature of the post and the duties 
were diﬀ erent only with reference to the subjects they were dealing with. 
Respondent No. 4 had joined the service as a Research Assistant (Medicine) 
in pursuance of an advertisement issued, deﬁ ning the qualiﬁ cations, duties 
and the scale for the post. The result of grant of higher pay scale to him 
from the date he joined service would mean that even for the intermittent 
period when he remained in service with CSTT, though he remained on 
deputation for quite some time in a higher pay scale, he also got a higher 
pay. 
42. The favouritism shown to the respondent No. 4 is evident from 
the fact that a portion of recommendations made by the Commission which 
were relied upon to grant him a higher pay scale, were with reference to
907
the Indian System of Medicines and Homeopathy for the Medical Oﬃ  cers 
working at diﬀ erent levels. Admittedly, respondent No. 4 was neither 
appointed nor was he working as a Medical Oﬃ  cer, though his qualiﬁ cation 
may have been the same. Non-application of mind by the respondent No. 
1-Union of India is evident from the fact that though he was not practising 
in Medicine, respondent No. 4 was even granted NPA which is granted to 
doctors who are not allowed to carry on private practice while working 
as Medical Oﬃ  cer.
43. Para 52.32 to 52.34 of the report of Commission is extracted 
below:
“PHYSICIANS OF INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE & 
Homeopathy (ISM&H)
××
××
××
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
Central Indigenous 
& Homoeo Medical 
Service
52.32. The Tikku Committee recommended 
a separate organised service for ISM&H. 
The Consultancy Study has suggested 
integration of ISM&H doctors in the 
CHS with equal opportunity for high level 
posts. The Administrative Ministry has 
underline the need for building organised 
career management at par with GDOs of 
the CHS. To carry through the objectives 
of a separate Department of ISM&H, we 
recommend that an organised service, 
called the Central Indigenous & Homoeo 
Medical Service, may be constituted 
to include the 182 practitioners, and 
other physicians of these systems in 
the Ministry of Labour, Deptt. Of Coal, 
Armed Forces Ayurveda Dispensary 
and the Pharmacopoeia Labs of Indian 
Medicine and Homoeopathy, carrying 
medical
qualiﬁ cations
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

908 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
Parity with GDMOs
52.33 ISM&H Physicians have parity 
at entry level with Allopathic doctors. 
But for career progression they have 
to wait for vacancies. The Fourth CPC 
recommended parity of Physicians 
of ISM&H with GDOs of CHS, by 
upgrading existing post in the scale of 
Rs.650-1200 to Rs.2200-4000, provided 
that the incumbents possess degrees. The 
Tikku Committee also recommended 
similarly. But both were silent regarding 
career progression. The Consultancy 
Study as well as administrative Ministry 
have recommended that parity of ISM&H 
Physicians with Allopathic doctors. As 
specialisations are yet to emerge with 
concrete foundation in ISM&H, we 
recommend a general parity with GDOs 
as follows:
Level
Designation 
Scale
Residency
3rd ACP 
Chief Medical 
Oﬃ  cer 
(Selection 
Grade)
Rs.4500-5700
-
2nd ACP
Chief Medical 
Oﬃ  cer
Rs.3700-5000
4 yrs.
1st ACP
Senior 
Medical 
Oﬃ  cer
Rs.3000-4500
5 yrs.
Entry
Medical 
Oﬃ  cer
Rs.2200-4000
4 yrs.
Career progression beyond the selection 
grade will continue to be based on 
vacancies. Fourth CPC upgraded only
909
those degree holders who were in the 
scale of Rs.650-1200 (pre-revised). 
The administrative Ministry has 
supported the demand for a general 
upgradation as was done by Third CPC 
for Allopathic Doctors and Fourth CPC 
for Veterinarians. As the educational 
requirement of the post are the same 
for MBBS doctors, we may recommend 
that all posts requiring medical practice 
in ISM&H and a degree in ISM&H as 
the minimum qualiﬁ cation be placed in 
the entry scale of Rs.200-4000 and all 
the posts except those in Delhi Admn. 
be merged in the Central Indigenous & 
Homoeo Medical Service.
Allowances
52.34. The Third CPC had recommended 
withdrawal of NPA from the ISM&H 
Doctors. However, the Fourth CPC 
granted it at rates at par with Allopathic 
Doctors. As the Physicians of ISM&H 
are equally concerned with Medical 
practices teaching and research, we 
recommend that allowances and facilities 
granted to GDOs of Allopathic stream 
should also be granted to Physicians 
of the ISM&H on the same terms and 
conditions.”
44. It will not be out of place to mention here that in the recommendations 
made by the Commission, there was a separate paragraph 71.16 that dealt 
with employees working in CSTT. However, the same was ignored by the 
respondent No. 1-Union of India. 
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
910 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
45. Further, paras 71.15 to 71.17 of the report of the Commission are 
extracted below:
“COMMISSION FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL 
TERMINOLOGY AND CENTRAL HINDI DIRECTORATE
Organisation and 
functions
71.15 The main task of the Commission 
for Scientiﬁ c and Technical Terminology 
( CSTT) is the evolution of scientiﬁ c and 
technical terminology in Hindi and other 
Indian languages, whereas for Central 
Hindi Directorate, it is compilation of 
bilingual and trilingual dictionaries. The 
nature of the work in the two organisations 
is basically academic and research oriented. 
We therefore recommend that the two 
organisations should be converted into 
autonomous institutions. The pay scales 
and promotion prospects of research staﬀ 
in both the organisations have suﬀ ered over 
a period of time. Department of Education 
appointed various expert Committees from 
time to time but the recommendations have 
not been implemented so far. In this context, 
we have reviewed the entire cadre structure 
of the two organisations.
Our 
Recommendations 
CSTT
71.16. We feel that the cadre structure of 
the technical post in the Commission for 
Scientiﬁ c & Technical Terminology needs to 
be re-arranged. The post of Research Assistant 
(Rs.1640-2900) should be redesignated as 
Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer in the pay scale 
of Rs.2000-3500, in view of the nature of 
their work and the fact that the recruitment 
qualiﬁ cation is a post graduate
degree. The 
pay scale of Assistant Education Office/ 
Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer may be revised to the
911
replacement scale of Rs.2500-4000, while 
Assistant Director (Rs.2200-4000) will 
continue in the same pay scale and will be 
given the corresponding replacement scale. 
While the initial recruitment at Research 
Assistant level shall be made by direct 
recruitment, the posts of Assistant Education 
Oﬃ  cer and Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer should be ﬁ lled 
by promotion. The post of Assistant Education 
Officer will also then be redesignated as 
Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer. For the grade of Asstt. 
Director, the method of recruitment should be 
made 50% by promotion and 50% by direct 
recruitment.
Central Hindi 
Directorate
71.17 The cadre of research posts in the 
Central Hindi Directorate needs a similar re-
organisation. The pay scales and designation 
of Research Assistant (Rs.1640-2900) and 
Assistant Education Officer (Rs.2000-
3200) should be changed to Assistant 
Research Oﬃ  cer and Research Oﬃ  cer in the 
scales of Rs.2000-3500 and Rs.2500-4000 
respectively. It is also recommended that the 
pay scale of General Editor (Hindi) should 
be revised to Rs.3700-5000, but it should 
continue to be ﬁ lled by direct recruitment. 
The initial recruitment at Research Assistant 
level should be made 100% by direct 
recruitment and those at Research Oﬃ  cer 
and Deputy Director/Regional Director level 
should be by promotion. The method of 
recruitment at Assistant Director level should 
be changed to 50% by promotion and 50% 
by direct recruitment.”
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF
INDIA AND 
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
912 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
46. However, when the authorities realised their mistake, to cover 
up the same, order dated 20.04.2007 was issued and the post of Assistant 
Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine), the only one in the cadre manned by the 
respondent No. 4, was declared to be an ex-cadre post. The reason assigned 
was that higher pay scale had been granted to the respondent No. 4. There 
was no corresponding amendment in the Rules or otherwise as the post of 
Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) was still governed by the 1980 Rules 
which govern the parties. No justiﬁ cation for this action was oﬀ ered by the 
respondents at the time of hearing of the matter.
47. Still further, the authorities realised that the post on which 
respondent No. 4 was working was not that of a Medical Oﬃ  cer with 
which his pay scale was equated and he was granted NPA. The order 
dated 26.07.2017 vide which higher pay scale and NPA was granted to 
the respondent No. 4, was withdrawn to the extent of grant of NPA. The 
said order was challenged by the respondent No. 4 by ﬁ ling an Original 
Application before the Tribunal. The same was dismissed by the Tribunal 
on 31.7.2019. The stand taken therein by the oﬃ  cial respondents was that 
the respondent No. 4 was working on the post of Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer 
(Medicine) in CSTT, where his duties could not be equated with the doctors 
working in the Ministry of Health and Ministry of AYUSH. As they are 
barred from
private practice, they were granted NPA. The writ petition 
challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal was dismissed as withdrawn 
with liberty to move a representation before the competent authority. The 
matter remains here as none of the counsel pointed out any subsequent 
development.
48. Apparently, the authorities favouring the respondent No. 4 and the 
respondent No. 4 together were not able to achieve the objective of granting 
a higher status and pay scale to him. By every action, the respondent No. 
4 generated litigation and planned new devices to steal a march over other 
similarly situated as him.
49. At the time of recruitment of the appellants as well as the respondent 
No. 4, they were governed by the 1980 Rules. The post was designated as 
that of a Research Assistant. It provided for diﬀ erent subjects including 
Medicine. Vide order dated 20.07.2000, the Government re-designated the 
post of Research Assistant to that of Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer. As is evident
913
from the notiﬁ cation dated 19.11.1993, the mode of recruitment provided 
for the post was 75% by way of direct recruitment/transfer and 25% by way 
of transfer on deputation. There was no other post. 
50. Vide order dated 26.08.2013, issued by the Government of India, 
Ministry of Human Resources Development, the post of Assistant Scientiﬁ c 
Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) was re-designated as Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine). 
Needless to add that the post of Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) was 
still governed by the 1980 Rules, where no designation of Senior Scientiﬁ c 
Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) was available. No other set of Rules were referred to 
as on the date of issuance of the aforesaid order, by which the new post 
would be governed.
51. The intention of the authorities who went out and out to favour the 
respondent No. 4 so as to grant him higher pay scale, was now sought to be 
achieved by notifying a separate set of Rules for him. Two set of Rules were 
notiﬁ ed on 17.02.2014, namely, Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) Rules 
2014 and Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) Rules, 2014. There is nothing 
provided in the Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) Rules, 2014, notiﬁ ed 
on 17.02.2014 to show that till the framing of the aforesaid Rules, any earlier 
Rules governing the post had been repealed. Rule 2 thereof provided for 
the number of posts with classiﬁ cation as per Schedule attached therewith. 
In the Schedule, the name of the post was mentioned as
Assistant Scientiﬁ c 
Oﬃ  cer25. The only diﬀ erence between the 1980 Rules and Assistant Scientiﬁ c 
Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) Rules, 2014 was that in the earlier Rules, in the column 
of post, subjects such as Biochemistry, Biotechnology and Microbiology 
and the words ‘or any other subject as per the requirement’ were not there. 
The classiﬁ cation of the post was same. The method of recruitment was 
provided as direct recruitment. Only the subject of Medicine was deleted but 
the title of the Rule was Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) Rules, 2014.
25 Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Agriculture, Anthropology, Archaeology, Biochemistry, 
Biotechnology, Botany, Chemistry, Commerce, Drawing and Painting, Economics, 
Education, Engineering (Civil, Electrical, Computer Science, Mechanical, Electronics, 
Textile, Mineral, Leather Technology), Geography, Geology, Home Science, 
Journalism, Library Science, Linguistics, Management, Mathematics, Philosophy, 
Physics, Political Science, Psychology, Public Administration, Sociology, Zoology or 
any other subject as per the requirement.
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
52. As far as Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) Rules, 2014 are 
concerned, the same were notiﬁ ed only for one post with higher pay scale 
as compared to the Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) Rules, 2014. The 
qualiﬁ cation prescribed therein for the post was the same, as was provided 
for in the 1980 Rules that governed the post of Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer, 
which included the subject Medicine also. The method of recruitment 
provided in the above Rules was by way of direct recruitment.
53. Notiﬁ cation of Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) Rules, 2014 
dated 17.02.2014 issued only to deal with a single post of Senior Scientiﬁ c 
Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) amply demonstrates that the preparation for granting 
undue beneﬁ t to the respondent No. 4 had started well in advance. Firstly, 
the post of Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) was re-designated as 
Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) and thereafter, separate Rules were 
notiﬁ ed for that post. 
54. As has already been noticed in the preceding paragraphs, 
immediately after joining as a Research Assistant (later on re-designated 
as Assistant Scientific Officer), the respondent No. 4 started making 
representations for granting him higher pay scale. However, when his 
request was not accepted, he went on deputation thrice to diﬀ erent places 
in the higher pay scale. Finally, his request for grant of higher pay scale 
was accepted. How a single person in the same
cadre on the same post 
governed by the same set of Rules was granted a higher pay scale solely by 
relying upon the recommendations made by the Commission, which were 
not applicable. The other members of the cadre (appellants) had raised 
objections to this. 
55. Then the case took a new turn. Without there being any 
amendment in the Rules, ﬁ rstly the post of Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer 
(Medicine) was declared ex-cadre on 20.04.2007 and secondly, the NPA 
granted to the respondent No. 4, though he was not practising as a doctor, 
which was withdrawn on 26.07.2017. Though the appellants had not got 
any relief either from the Tribunal or the High Court, but still there was a 
sword hanging on the head of the respondent No. 4 on account of getting 
undue beneﬁ t. Firstly, the post of Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) 
was re-designated as Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) vide order 
dated 26.08.2013 and thereafter, Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine)
915
Rules, 2014 were framed for a single post of Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer 
(Medicine) in CSTT. There is no document referred to from the record 
that the respondent No. 4 was ever appointed as a Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer 
(Medicine) in terms of the Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) Rules, 
2014, which provided only direct recruitment as a mode of recruitment. 
Even the stand taken by the Government in the Original Application ﬁ led 
by the respondent No. 4 before the Tribunal challenging the withdrawal 
of NPA was that the post under the Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) 
Rules, 2014 could be ﬁ lled by way of direct recruitment only. It was the 
speciﬁ c stand of the Government that Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) 
Rules, 2014 are not applicable to respondent No. 4. It is so evident from 
the order passed by the Tribunal.
56. If the Senior Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) Rules, 2014 are not 
applicable to the respondent No. 4, the post of the respondent No. 4 with 
the notiﬁ cation of Assistant Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) Rules, 2014 
goes in vacuum, as this subject is not mentioned in the Assistant Scientiﬁ c 
Oﬃ  cer (Medicine) Rules, 2014. As a result, he may be governed by the 
1980 Rules. There was nothing pointed out or referred to at the time of the 
hearing regarding promotional avenues from the post of Assistant Scientiﬁ c 
Oﬃ  cer (Medicine).
57. From the facts, as have been noticed above, in our opinion, the 
authorities were hand in gloves with the
respondent No. 4 to somehow grant 
him a higher pay scale and repeatedly action was taken in that direction. If 
governed by the same set of Rules, a single post of the same cadre could 
not have been isolated and granted a higher pay scale by merely considering 
the qualiﬁ cations prescribed for the post. There was no challenge laid down 
by the respondent No. 4 to the Rules under which he was recruited. He 
had accepted his appointment letter under the 1980 Rules and had joined 
service accordingly. 
58. We do not ﬁ nd any justiﬁ cation to grant same scale to the appellants 
as was generously and wrongly granted to the respondent No. 4 by treating 
him equal to the Medical Oﬃ  cer working in the Ministry of Health and 
Family Welfare. As even that scale was wrongly granted to him, there was 
no justiﬁ cation for grant of higher pay scale to the respondent No. 4 vide 
order dated 13.12.2006, with eﬀ ect from 18.01.1999, i.e., the date of his 
DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
916 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
initial appointment. The same was certainly illegal and cannot withstand 
in judicial scrutiny.
59. As a consequence, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal 
and the High Court are quashed. The order dated 04.01.2010 justifying 
the beneﬁ ts granted to respondent No. 4 is set aside. As a result, even the 
appellants are not held entitled to higher pay scales as were granted to 
respondent No. 4.
60. Since during the interregnum, the respondent No. 4 had been 
unjustiﬁ ably paid salary in the higher pay scale, one option could be that 
whatever had been paid to him till date, be left as such and his pay could 
be directed to be re-ﬁ xed from a future date. However, having regard to 
the level of the post of the respondent No. 4 and the manner in which he 
was extended special treatment at every step and was granted higher pay 
scale, we do not propose to adopt that course as this is not a case of any 
bonaﬁ de error. It was a well-planned and deliberate infraction. We therefore 
direct recovery of the excess amount paid to the respondent No. 4, though 
in instalments and/or from the oﬃ  cer(s), who were directly involved in the 
decision-making process of granting undue beneﬁ t to the respondent No.4. 
Both should be made equally liable to reimburse the exchequer for the 
amount illegally disbursed to the respondent No.4. The exchequer should 
not be made to suﬀ er on that account and either of two shall have to make 
good that
loss of undue beneﬁ t granted to the respondent No. 4.
61. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Headnotes prepared by: 
Appeal allowed.
Nidhi Jain