B. RADHAKRISHNAN  versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 57, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 14 s,c.R. 57 
B. RADHAKRISHNAN 
v. 
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 13407 of 2015) 
NOVEMBER 17, 2015 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
ABHAV MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Service Jaw: Recovery of excess amount paid to the 
employee - Single Judge of High Court directed stepping 
A 
B 
c 
up of basic pay of the appellants-writ petitioners at par with 
some other employees - €Jrder implemented - Division 
Bench allowed State's appeal against the said order and held D 
that appellants could not be compared with the other set of 
employees to grant parity of pay and ordered recovery of 
excess amount paid - On appeal, held: The respondents 
issued an order sanctioning stepping up of the pay scale of 
the appellants on the strength of the order of High Court -
E 
While claiming this relief, the appellants neither committed 
any fault nor made any incorrect/false statement to secure 
the benefits and it was being claimed only on the basis of 
parity - Therefore, it shall not be just to recover any excess 
amount which has already been paid to them. 
F 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: It shall only be just and proper not to recover 
any excess amount from the appellants, which has been 
G 
paid to them on the basis of stepping up of .their pay 
scale. It is much more so when the appellants have given 
up their challenge to the respondent's main action taken 
against the appellants objecting for the grant of benefit 
of stepping up of their pay and confined their
attack to H 
57

58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A the issue of recovery of excess amount from them. The 
impugned order is modified only to the extent of directing 
the respondents not to make recovery of any excess 
amount from the appellants in relation to the payment 
made to them towards stepping up of their pay scale. 
B [Paras 18, 19] [63-F-H; 64-A] 
c 
D 
Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & 
Ors. 1994 (1) SCR 100 : (1994) 2 sec 521 -
relied on. 
Union of India & Ors. v. O.P. Saxena 1997 (2) 
Suppl. SCR 695: 1997 (6) SCC 360 - referred 
to. 
Case Law Reference 
1997 (2) Suppl. SCR 695 
1994 (1) SCR 700 
referred to 
relied on 
Para 11 
Para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
E 13407 of 2015. 
F· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2013 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Madras in W. A. No. 398 of 2013 
WITH 
C. A. No. 13409 of 2015. 
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Govind Manoharan, Ms. Suchitra 
Kumbhat (For Senthil Jagadeesan) for the Appellant. 
G 
Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv., B. Balaji for the 
H 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
B. RADHAKRISHNAN v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & 
59 
ORS. 
2. These appeals are filed against the common final 
A 
judgment and order dated 02.07.2013 of the.High Court of 
Judicature at Madras in W.A. Nos.398 and 399 of 2Q13 
whereby the High Court allowed the appeals filed by the 
respondents herein and set aside the common order dated 
13.09.201 O of the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 9527 B 
and 9528 of 2006 by which the appellants' writ petitions were 
allowed. 
3. 
In order to appreciate the issue involved in these · 
appeals, which lie in a narrow compass, few relevant facts c 
need mention infra. 
4. Mr. B. Radhakrishnan and Mr. K. Padmaraj, -
appellants herein were enlisted in the Police Department of 
the Coimbatore City Police Unit in the year 1976 and 1977 
respectively as Grade-II Police Constables: One Eswaran and D 
others were recruited between 1979 and 1982 in theTamil . 
"' 
Nadu Special Police Battalion as Grade-II Police Constables, 
Category Ill.. These persons were promoted to the post of Naik 
in the year 1985 and subsequently in the year 1987 to the post 
of Havaldar. At that time these persons were drawing higher E 
pay than the appellants. 
5. In the year 1993, Eswaran and others exercised their 
option as provided in the Tamil Nadu Special Police 
Subordinate Service Rules 1978 and sought their transfer to 
F 
the Armed Reserve, Coimbatore City Division. It was allowed. 
6. After their transfer, it was found that in the transferred · 
post, they
have to receive lower pay and accordingly 
instructions were issued by the office of the Director General 
vide memo dated 27.07.1982 for protection of their pay and G 
hence their pay was regularized in the scale of pay of Rs.825-
15-900-20-1200 on the basis of the pay last drawn by them in 
the time scale. of pay of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040. 
H
60 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Subsequently, they got promotion as Grade I Police Constable 
and Head Constable in the Taluk Police at Coimbatore and 
consequently their pay was fixed under Fundamental Rule 22B. 
7. With regard to their pay protection, the Accountant 
B General of Tamil Nadu raised objection, therefore, the 
Government ordered recovery of excess pay and allowances 
from them. 
8. Aggrieved by the orders of recovery, Eswaran and 
others filed applications being O.A. No. 10317 of 1997 etc. 
C etc. before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. 
By order dated 06.04.2004, the Tribunal allowed the 
applications and set aside the orders of recovery. 
9. The appellants herein, therefore, gave a 
D representation to the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore to 
fix their pay at par with their juniors, namely, Eswaran and others. 
By order dated 17.09.2005, their representation was rejected 
on the ground that the conditions in Fundamental Rule 22B 
Ruling (2) are not fulfilled. 
E 
10. Aggrieved by the refusal to step up their basic pay at 
par with Eswaran and others, the appellants herein preferred 
writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 9527 & 9528 of 2006 before 
the High Court. By order dated 13.09.2010, the learned Single 
F Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed 
stepping up of basic pay of the appellants herein at par with 
Eswaran and others. This order was implemented by the 
respondents by issuing the order dated
08.10.2011 and 
G 
H 
accordingly the basic pay of the appellants was stepped up. 
11. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, 
the respondents (State) filed appeals being Writ Appeal Nos. 
398 and 399 of 2013 before the Division Bench of the High 
Court. By common impugned judgment, the Division Bench
B. RADHAKRISHNANv. THE STATEOFTAMILNADU & 
61 
ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
allowed the appeals, set aside the order of the learned Single A 
Judge and dismissed the appellants' writ petitions. It was held 
that the case of the appellants could not be compared with 
that of the other set of employees-namely Eswaran and others 
to claim parity in pay in terms of Ruling 2 of Fundamental Rule 
22B and Ruling 2 of Fundamental Rule 27 for the reason that B 
in order to claim parity in pay, firstly, both junior and senior 
officers should belong to the same Cadre/Post in which they 
have been promoted/appointed. Secondly, there should be 
parity in pay in lower and higher pay. Thirdly, Eswaran and 
others became Armed Reserve Grade-II Police Constables C 
on their own reasons and apart from that they were promoted 
as 'Naik' and 'Havaldar' and were, therefore, in receipt of higher 
emoluments after transfer. Fourthly, their emoluments were 
lower than the amount received by them as members of Tamil 0 
Nadu Special Police Battalion. This view was taken by the 
Division Bench by placing reliance on the decision of this Court 
in Union of India & Ors. vs. O.P. Saxena [1997 (6) SCC 
360], wherein it was held inter a/ia that when the feeder post 
of employee concerned is different, the principle of stepping E 
up of pay would not apply. 
12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellants 
have preferred these appeals by way of special leave petitions 
before this Court. 
13.
Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing for 
the appellants, argued only one point. It was his submission 
that the appellants had been getting the benefit of the order 
dated 13.09.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge during 
F 
the pendency of the petitions because the respondents had G 
implemented the said order by stepping up their pay. It was 
pointed out that consequent upon the passing of the impugned 
order, which resulted in setting aside of the order of the learned 
Single Judge and in consequence resulted in dismissal of 
H
62 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14S.C.R. 
A appellants' writ petition, the respondents are now 
contemplating an action to recover the excess amount paid to 
the appellants during the interregnum period on the strength 
of the impugned order. Learned counsel, by placing reliance 
on the principles laid down by this Court in Shyam Babu 
B Verma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 521, 
urged that the respondents can be restrained from making 
recovery of excess amount from the appellants because the 
appellants neither misrepresented any fact nor committed any 
fault and nor indulged in any kind of illegality in securing the 
C benefit. Learned Counsel, however, did not challenge the 
action of the respondents on merits. 
D 
14. In contra, Mr. S. Prasad, learned seriior counsel for 
the respondents supported the impugned order. 
15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the 
submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. 
16. In somewhat similar facts, a Bench of three Judges 
E of this Court in Shyam Babu Verma's case (supra) had 
issued a direction against the Government not to make recovery 
of any excess payment in relation to the money which was 
already paid to the employees concerned because it was 
F noticed that the excess payments were not made to the 
employees concerned on account of any fault on their part. 
This is what was held in para 11 in Shyam Babu's case, 
"11.
Although we have held that the petitioners 
were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs 330-480 
G 
in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay 
Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after 
the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the 
pay scale of Rs 330-560 but as they have received 
the scale of Rs 330-560 since 1973 due to no fault 
H
B. RADHAKRISHNAN v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & 
63 
ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.) 
of theirs and that scale is being reduced in the year A 
1984 with effect from January 1, 1973, it shall only 
be just and proper not to recover any excess 
amount which has already been paid to them . . 
Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be 
taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount B 
paid to the petitioners due to the fault of the 
respondents, the petitioners being in no way 
responsible for the same." 
17. Applying the same principle to the facts of the case. c 
in hand, we notice that firstly, the respondents issued an order 
sanctioning stepping up of the pay scale of the appellants on 
the strength of the order of High Court. Secondly, while claiming 
this relief, the appellants neither committed any fault nor made 
any incorrect/false statement to secure the benefits because D 
it was being claimed only on the basis of parity and lastly, the 
appellants rendered their services for the period in question. 
18. In the light of these reasons and further keeping in 
view the short controversy involved in the case which is E 
somewhat akin to the case of Shaym Babu (supra), we are 
of the view that similar directions, which were given in the case 
of Shaym Babu, can also be given in these appeals against 
the respondents. In other words, it shall only be just and proper 
not to recover _any excess amount from the appellants, which F 
has been paid to them on the basis of
stepping up of their pay 
scale. It is much more so when as mentioned above, the 
appellants have given up their challenge to the respondent's 
main action taken against the appellants objecting for the grant 
of benefit of stepping up of their pay and confined their attack G 
to the issue of recovery of excess amount from them. 
19. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed 
and are hereby allowed in part. The impugned order is modified 
H .

64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14S.C.R. 
A only to the extent of directing the respondents not to make 
recovery of any excess amount from the appellants in relation 
to the payment made to them towards stepping up of their pay 
scale. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeals pa:11y allowed.