Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 351 (GUJ)

Gujarat Maritime Board v. Ramesh M. Trivedi

2011-04-26

G.B.SHAH, V.M.SAHAI

body2011
JUDGMENT : V.M. SAHAI, J. 1. These Letters Patent Appeals have been filed challenging the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25th March, 2010 in Special Civil Applications. We have taken up for hearing these Appeals for final disposal. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 1774 of 2010 arising out of Special Civil Application No. 11923 of 2008 shall be treated as the leading Appeal. 2. The short factual matrix of this group of Appeals is that the respondents in the Appeals who were petitioners in the writ petitions were working with the Gujarat Maritime Board (for short “the Board”) which was constituted on 5th April, 1982 under the provisions of Section 3(2) of Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981 (for short “the Act”). It was brought into force by the State Government from 5th April, 1982 by Port and Fisheries Department Notification dated 3rd April, 1982. The respondents in these Appeals were appointed when the Board was in existence. Since no service Regulations or Rules were framed by the State Government for the employees of the Board, therefore, the State Government issued a circular dated 16.4.1982 that the Government has decided that the Board should follow and continue the prevailing administrative/financial rules and regulations and about other matters, procedures, circulars, instructions, all schemes and approvals, subject to the provision of the Act from the date of formation of the Board, till the rules and regulations are framed by the Government. The service of the employees of the Board were governed by the administrative/financial Rules which were prevailing. All the employees who are before this Court were working as Tradesmen and they were granted first higher grade pay scale of the cadre of Foremen retrospectively from the date they completed nine years of service as Tradesman as stipulated in Government Resolution no. AOP-1091/3/M dated 5th July, 1991. The employees were although treated as Foremen by the Board. 2.1. In the year 2004, a scheme was framed by the Board for voluntary retirement. A large number of Foremen who are before this Court opted for voluntary retirement scheme. Their pay was fixed by the authorities and accordingly their pension was also fixed. Their voluntary retirements were also approved by the higher authorities of the Board. They have voluntarily retired from service in the year 2004 after following due procedure prescribed under the Scheme. A large number of Foremen who are before this Court opted for voluntary retirement scheme. Their pay was fixed by the authorities and accordingly their pension was also fixed. Their voluntary retirements were also approved by the higher authorities of the Board. They have voluntarily retired from service in the year 2004 after following due procedure prescribed under the Scheme. They have been receiving pension as per their pension fixation. Some of the employees who are before this Court are still in service as Foreman and they had also been given first higher grade pay scale of Foreman after they completed nine years' service as Tradesman. 2.2. An order dated 2.9.2008 was passed by the Board withdrawing the first higher grade pay scale granted to its employees in the cadre of Foreman with retrospective effect from the year 1994 on the ground that the Tradesman were granted higher grade pay scale of the post of Foreman by mistake as next promotional post for the post of Tradesman was the post of Mistry. From the Post of Mistry, an employee is promoted on the post of Foreman. Therefore, the employees were entitled for first higher grade pay scale of the next promotional post of Mistry but they have wrongly been given higher grade pay scale of Foreman which was sought to be recovered by the appellants as excess amount had been paid to the employees under a mistake. 3. We have heard Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Paresh Upadhyay, Mr. B.B. Gogia, Mr. N.V. Anjaria and Mr. I.S. Supehia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has placed before us chronology of some of the important events alongwith annexure which we have accepted and treated part of the record of the Appeal as the respondents counsel have no objection. 4. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has urged that the promotional post of Tradesman is Mistry, and Mistry is promoted as Foreman, but under a mistake the employees who were working as Tradesman were granted the first higher grade pay scale of Foreman after completion of nine years service as Tradesman though they were entitled to the higher grade pay scale of Mistry only. Therefore, excess amount paid to the employees is to be recovered by the Board. Therefore, excess amount paid to the employees is to be recovered by the Board. It is urged that the sanctioned set-up of posts is fixed by the Head Office at Gandhinagar and whatever the posts are fixed by the Head Office for each port, the employees are appointed or promoted. 4.1. Learned senior counsel has placed before us the draft rules framed by the Director of Ports, Gujarat State which were known as Draft Recruitment Rules for class III and Class-IV cadres framed on 11th August, 1976. The draft rules provide that a Majdoor/apprentice shall be eligible for the post of Khalasi/Fire fighter; Mukaddam/ Khalasi would be eligible for the promotion to the post of Assistant Tradesman/switch board attendant/wireman/pump attendant; Assistant Tradesman would be eligible for promotion to the post of Mistry; Mistry would be eligible for promotion to the post of Foreman. Learned senior counsel vehemently urged that in absence of any statutory rules, the draft rules, though not yet notified by the Board or by the State Government, would have to be followed and it would be in force. The draft rules can be treated as administrative instructions and would govern the service conditions of the employees working under the Board. 4.2. The learned senior counsel has urged that Finance Department, State of Gujarat issued notification framing Gujarat Civil Service (Revision of Pay) Rule, 1975 (for short the Rules, 1975) in exercise of its powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which came into force from 1st January, 1973. This notification contained department-wise post. Under the head of “Director of Ports” and the pay scales applicable to the relevant posts were set out therein which mentioned the revised pay scale of Tradesman as Rs. 260-400. However, this rule was amended. The Finance Department of the State of Gujarat issued a notification framing Gujarat Civil Service (Revision of Pay) (8th Amendment) Rules, 1982 which also came into force with retrospective effect from 1st January, 1973 and revised pay scales of Tradesman which were earlier shown as Rs. 260-400 came to be substituted by the figure of pay scale of Rs. 350-560. The effect of this pay Revision was that the pay scale for the post of Tradesman and Mistry became the same with effect from 1.1.1973. 260-400 came to be substituted by the figure of pay scale of Rs. 350-560. The effect of this pay Revision was that the pay scale for the post of Tradesman and Mistry became the same with effect from 1.1.1973. The learned senior counsel placing reliance on Pay Revision Rules 1975 and its amendment urged that in view of the Government Resolutions dated 5th July, 1991 and subsequent Government Resolutions dated 16.8.1994 and 14.8.1998, the first higher grade pay scale shall be the pay scale of the next promotional post and since next promotional post of Tradesman was Mistry, therefore, the higher grade pay scale of Foreman given to the Tradesman was illegal. The appellants have placed on record, only one order dated 16th July, 1993 by which some Tradesman were promoted to the post of Mistry on ad hoc basis. 4.3. The learned senior counsel further urged that Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991 paragraph (iii) and its first proviso and schedule appended along with it, would apply to the Tradesman and since there was no promotional post for Tradesman, after nine years of service he would be entitled as per the proviso the higher grade pay scale mentioned in the schedule. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the employees have urged that there was no post of Mistry in existence under the Board. Under the Director of Ports, prior to the creation of the Board or under the Board no one was appointed as Mistry. Tradesman were being promoted on the post of Foreman as pay scale of Tradesman and Mistry was one and the same pay scale of Rs. 350-560. The post of Mistry and Tradesman were interchangeable and Mistry could be transferred to the post of Tradesman and vice versa, a Tradesman could be transferred on the post of Mistry. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed on record two order Nos. 153 and 153/A dated 30th October, 1980 passed by the appellants by which two Tradesman were transferred on the post of Mistry. Another order dated 17th February, 1987 by which a Tradesman was transferred on the post of Mistry. On the strength of these orders, learned counsel for the employees have urged that prior to the creation of the Board and even after creation of the Board, the posts of Tradesman and Mistry were in the same pay scales and they were interchangeable and transferrable. On the strength of these orders, learned counsel for the employees have urged that prior to the creation of the Board and even after creation of the Board, the posts of Tradesman and Mistry were in the same pay scales and they were interchangeable and transferrable. 5.1. Learned counsel for the employees have further urged that draft rules which were framed on 11th August, 1976, even after 35 years, have not yet been notified and the State Government never intended to notify these draft rules and therefore, these draft rules could not be considered either to be rules or executive/administrative instructions governing the service conditions of the employees working under the Board. They further urged that service conditions of the employees of the Board were governed by the prevailing administrative/financial rules and the draft rules could not be relied by the appellants. 5.2. Learned counsel for the respondents have further urged that the higher grade pay scale of Foreman was given to the employees between 1991 to 1994. After more than 17 to 18 years it was not open to the appellants to challenge that pay scales of Foreman were wrongly given. The higher grade pay scale of Foreman was granted to the respondents by the appellant after obtaining approval from the higher authorities between 1991 to 1994 and there was no misrepresentation made by the respondents. They urged that the complaint made to the Chief Minister in the year 2000 and inquiry set up by the Government was not with regard to the Foreman or higher grade pay scale of Foreman. The complaint was made and the inquiry was conducted with respect to some Khalasis of Navlakhi Port who were alleged to have been granted higher pay scale of Tradesman wrongly. The accounts of the Board were also audited and no audit objection was raised at any point of time against the respondents/Foremen. 6. The first question which arises for consideration in these Appeals is that what were the administrative/financial rules which were applicable to the employees prior to the creation of the Board and after its creation. Prior to the creation of the Board, rules of the State Government were applicable to the employees working under the Director of Ports which is clear from Rules 1975 which were framed on 21st October 1975 and in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Prior to the creation of the Board, rules of the State Government were applicable to the employees working under the Director of Ports which is clear from Rules 1975 which were framed on 21st October 1975 and in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Rules were made effective retrospectively from 1st January, 1973. The aforesaid notification contained Department-wise post under the heading “Director of Ports” from pages 227 to 233 and the pay scales applicable to the relevant posts, which are set out hereunder:- S. No. Designation Existing Pay Scale Revised Pay Scale 120 Dock hand 100-130 200-250 115 Assistant Tradesman 100-130 200-250 96 Tradesman 130-240 260-400 75 Mistry (Workshop)/ Electrical 160-265 350-560 59 Foreman (Mechanical) 175-345 380-600 Gujarat Civil Service (Revision of Pay) (8th amendment) Rules, 1982 were notified on 11th November, 1982 which were made effective retrospectively from 1.1.1973. When the main Rules of 1975 came into force and the pay scales of Tradesman shown at serial no. 96 was Rs. 260-400. By retrospective amendment, the figure 260-400 was substituted by figure 350-560. The result was that revised pay scale of Tradesman and Mistry became the same Rs. 350-560 with effect from 1st January, 1973, the date on which main Rules 1975 became effective. After the amendment to the Rules, 1975 the following position emerged with regard to Tradesman and Mistry:- S. No. Designation Existing Pay Scale Revised Pay Scale 96 Tradesman 130-240 350-560 75 Mistry (Workshop)/ Electrical 160-265 350-560 The Director of Ports and after creation of the Board, the Head Office of the Board and authorities of the Ports, were althrough treating the posts of Tradesman and Mistry to be interchangeable post and transfer was being effected from one post to another post, treating the next promotional post of Tradesman/Mistry to be Foreman. 6.1. Two orders of the appellants have been filed by the employees, one dated 30th October, 1980 was issued when Director of Ports was in existence, demonstrates that Tradesmen were transferred to the post of Mistry. After creation of the Board another order dated 17th February, 1987 also demonstrate that Tradesmen were being transferred to the post of Mistry. Throughout, the respondents have been accepting that posts of Tradesmen/Mistry was interchangeable and transferrable post, with the same pay scale of Rs. After creation of the Board another order dated 17th February, 1987 also demonstrate that Tradesmen were being transferred to the post of Mistry. Throughout, the respondents have been accepting that posts of Tradesmen/Mistry was interchangeable and transferrable post, with the same pay scale of Rs. 350-560 and the next promotional post of the Tradesman/Mistry was Foreman in higher grade pay scale of Rs. 380-600. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the post of Mistry was the promotional post of Tradesman cannot be accepted. 6.2. In ground no. 11 of the memo of the Appeal, as well as in affidavit-in-reply filed by the appellant in some of the writ petitions, it has been stated that sanctioned set-up of posts is fixed at Gandhinagar by the Head Office which transfer the posts to the ports. At Mandvi Port, there was no requirement of Mistry, therefore, the post of Mistry was not transferred to Mandvi by Head Office. But no documentary evidence to prove this fact with regard to Mandvi Port or any other port has been filed by the appellant. No material with regard to set-up of posts for any of the Ports fixed by Head Office has been filed by the appellants to demonstrate that how many posts of Tradesman, Mistry, Foreman had been sent to the different Ports by the Head Office. No order has been brought on record to prove the sanctioned set-up of Mistry for any Port. Even the Head Office and the Board were treating the post of Tradesman/Mistry having the same pay scale to be interchangeable post of which next promotional post was Foreman. In absence of any material on record, the contention of the appellant that Tradesman were to be promoted as Mistry is rejected. 6.3 We are of other considered opinion that Tradesman and Mistry were interchangeable and transferrable posts with same pay scale. There was no post of Mistry under the Board and the solitary order dated 16.7.1993 could not prove the existence of the post of Mistry. The next promotional post of Tradesman working under the Board was Foreman. 7. 6.3 We are of other considered opinion that Tradesman and Mistry were interchangeable and transferrable posts with same pay scale. There was no post of Mistry under the Board and the solitary order dated 16.7.1993 could not prove the existence of the post of Mistry. The next promotional post of Tradesman working under the Board was Foreman. 7. So far as Draft Rules are concerned, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the Single Judge decision of this Court in S.H. Bhambhani vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2006 (2) GLH 404, wherein in para-6, the learned Single Judge has held as under: “6. The plea that on the basis of Draft Rules, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 could not have been promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers, is devoid of merits. In High Court of Gujarat and Another vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and Others, (2003) 4 SCC 712, under Rules 2 and 3 of the Draft Recruitment Rules framed by the High Court which were pending approval of the Government, appointment on the post of President of Industrial Court was made. That was challenged before the High Court by way of filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was allowed by Full Bench of the High Court. One of the grounds, which weighed with the Full Bench, was that no action could have been taken on the basis of Draft Rules which were pending approval of the Government. While setting aside the decision of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court, the Supreme Court has held that appointment can validly be made under the rules even in their draft stage if there is a clear intention of the Government to enforce them in the near future....” 7.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Bhanumati Tapubhai Muliya vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 (2) GLH 228 , wherein in para-6, Division Bench of this Court has held as under: “6.....The reason for this is that it is now well-settled that in absence of statutory Rules, the Government can make recruitment on the basis of Administrative Instructions. The draft Recruitment Rules are no different from Administrative Instructions...” 7.2. The draft Recruitment Rules are no different from Administrative Instructions...” 7.2. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Vimal Kumari vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1998) 4 SCC 114 , the Apex Court has held as under: “6. The Draft Rules were prepared in 1983 and since then they have not been enforced. It is, no doubt, open to the Government to regular the service conditions of the employees for whom the Rules are made by those Rules even in their “draft stage” provided there is clear intention on the part of the Government to enforce those Rules in the near future. Recourse to such Draft Rules is permissible only for the interregnum to meet any emergent situation. But if the intention was not to enforce or notify the Rules at all, as is evident in the instant case, recourse to “Draft Rules” cannot be taken. Such Draft Rules cannot be treated to be Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution and cannot legally exclude the operation of any existing executive or administrative instruction on the subjects covered by the Draft Rules nor can such Draft Rules exclude the jurisdiction of the Government, or for that matter, any other authority, including the appointing authority, from issuing the executive instructions for regulating the conditions of service of the employees working under them.” 7.3. The Apex Court in another decision in High Court of Gujarat vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat, (2003) 4 SCC 712 has held in para-27 as under: “27. It is now trite that draft rules which are made to lie in a nascent state for a long time cannot be the basis for making appointment or recommendation. Rules even in their draft stage can be acted upon provided there is a clear intention on the part of the Government to enforce those rules in the near future. (See Vimal Kumari vs. State of Haryana.)” 7.4. The Apex Court in Union of India through Government of Pondicherry and Another vs. V. Ramkrishnan and Others, (2005) 8 SCC 394 has held in para-28 as under: “28. Valid rules made under proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution operates so long the said rules are not repealed and replaced. (See Vimal Kumari vs. State of Haryana.)” 7.4. The Apex Court in Union of India through Government of Pondicherry and Another vs. V. Ramkrishnan and Others, (2005) 8 SCC 394 has held in para-28 as under: “28. Valid rules made under proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution operates so long the said rules are not repealed and replaced. The draft rules, therefore, could not form the basis for grant of promotion, when Rules to the contrary are holding the field. It can safely be assumed that the principles in Abraham Jacob, Vimal Kumari and Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat that draft rules can be acted upon, will apply where there are no rules governing the matter and where recruitment is governed by departmental instructions or executive orders under Article 162 of the Constitution.” 7.5. From the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it is clear that if the Government had intention to notify the draft rules in near future, the draft rules could be treated to be an executive instructions, but where Government had no intention to notify the draft rules, in such cases, the draft rules could not be held to be executive instructions. In the case in hand, the employees were governed by the prevailing administrative/financial rules and regulations, circulars, instructions of the Government for the sake of administrative and financial convenience of the Board. It is necessary to extract the English translation of the circular dated 16.4.1982 issued by the Government as under: “Regarding following the existing rules/regulations for the time being, of the Government for the sake of administrative and financial convenience of the Board upon formation of Gujarat Maritime Board. Government of Gujarat Department of Ports and Fisheries Circular No. GMB/1082/G Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. Date: 16.4.1982 Circular According to the provisions of Gujarat Maritime Board Act,1981, rules are to be framed by the Government and the said regulations are required to be drafted by the Board. According to the provisions of the Act, first regulations are to be framed by the Government. The act of framing and granting these rules and regulations may take time. According to the provisions of the Act, first regulations are to be framed by the Government. The act of framing and granting these rules and regulations may take time. Therefore, for the convenience of the Board, the Government has decided that the Board shall follow and continue the prevailing administrative/financial rules and regulations and about other matters, procedures, circulars, instructions, all schemes and approvals, subject to the provisions of Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981 from the date of formation of the Board, till the rules and regulations are framed for the administrative convenience. This arrangement shall be continued till the rules and regulations of administrative, financial and other affairs are issued by the Government under the provisions of the Gujarat Maritime Board. By the order and in the name of Governor of Gujarat. Sd/- A.F. Vyas Deputy Secretary Ports and Fisheries Department.” From the aforesaid circular, it is clear that the rules and regulations of the Government were applicable to the Board. Gujarat Maritime Board is a statutory body and had been established for the predominant purpose of development of minor ports within the State of Gujarat, the management and control of the Board is essentially with the State Government. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat Maritime Board, (2007) 14 SCC 704. Therefore, the draft rules had no sanctity of law and could not be relied upon by the appellant nor could it be argued that draft rules would govern the service of the employees of the Board. Though the draft rules were drafted on 11th August, 1976, but the State Government had no intention to notify or accept the draft rules. This was the reason why the State Government had not notified these draft rules for a period of about 35 years and issued the circular dated 16.4.1982. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that draft rules would apply to the service conditions of the employees of the Board cannot be accepted. The draft rules were neither a statutory direction nor it was a mandatory instruction. It had no force of law. 8. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that draft rules would apply to the service conditions of the employees of the Board cannot be accepted. The draft rules were neither a statutory direction nor it was a mandatory instruction. It had no force of law. 8. For appreciating the next argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, based on Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991 produced by the appellant and more particularly on paragraph (iii) and its first proviso, it is necessary to extract the relevant part of the said Government Resolution as under: Government of Gujarat Government Resolution No. AOP-1091/3/M Finance Department Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar July 5, 1991 Resolution: To deal with the problem of stagnation in many cadres due to absence or restricted chances of promotions, Government had announced the Scheme of higher grade scales vide Government Resolution of even number dated 20.2.1991. In super-session of this earlier scheme, Government is now pleased to introduce the following scheme of grant of higher grade scales. (i) This scheme shall be applicable to all posts with a pay or scale of pay the maximum of which does not exceed Rs. 3500 per month. (ii) The first higher grade scale shall be granted on completion of 9 years of service in the relevant scale provide that the employee has not received more than two promotions earlier. For the purpose of computation of 9 years service in the relevant scale, all service that counts for increment in that scale shall be taken into account. (iii) The first higher grade scale of pay shall be the scale of pay of the next promotion post provided that for employees in a post having more than one promotional post in different scales of pay, their first higher grade scale of pay shall be the lower promotion post's scale of pay. Provided further that in case there is no promotion scale, the first higher grade scale shall be the higher grade scale corresponding to his existing scale as specified in the Schedule annexed to this Government Resolution. The main emphasis of the learned Senior Counsel is that in case where there is no promotional post, the first higher grade pay scale would be higher grade pay scale corresponding to its existing pay scale as specified in the schedule annexed to this Government Resolution. The main emphasis of the learned Senior Counsel is that in case where there is no promotional post, the first higher grade pay scale would be higher grade pay scale corresponding to its existing pay scale as specified in the schedule annexed to this Government Resolution. On the strength of the first proviso, learned senior counsel has urged that the Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991 prescribes that for existing scale of Rs. 1200-2040, the higher grade pay scale as per the schedule would be Rs. 1400- 2600. Similar provisions were made in Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 and 14.8.1998. This argument of the learned senior counsel is based on the assumption that from the post of Tradesman, a person is to be promoted on the post of Mistry and Mistry is to be promoted on the post of Foreman. There is a fallacy in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. The pay scale of Tradesman and Mistry being the same since the inception of Rules 1975 and the post of Mistry and Tradesman were interchangeable and transferrable from one post to other. At no port in Gujarat, the post of Mistry was sanctioned by the Head Office of the Board nor there is any material on record to prove the sanctioned set up of the post of Mistry for any port. Therefore, in such situation, the next promotional post of Tradesman would be Foreman. Paragraph (iii) and its first proviso and the schedule of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.91 and Government Resolutions dated 16.8.1994 and 14.8.1998 would not be applicable to the facts of the case. We have already held that the post of Mistry was not in existence under the Board, the next promotional post of Tradesman was Foreman. 9. From the facts of this case, it is clear that the appellants had given higher grade pay scale of Foreman to the respondents which was next promotional post of Tradesman after completion of nine years of service. The benefit was granted by the appellant from the date each employee completed nine years service. There was no audit objection and the approval to the grant of higher grade pay scale was approved by the superior officers and the authorities of the Head Office of the Board. The benefit was granted by the appellant from the date each employee completed nine years service. There was no audit objection and the approval to the grant of higher grade pay scale was approved by the superior officers and the authorities of the Head Office of the Board. The employees were offered scheme of voluntary retirement in the year 2004 and they have accepted voluntary retirement scheme and accordingly their pay scale was re-fixed and their pension was also fixed and large number of employees are drawing pension and some of them are still in service. After 17-18 years, the appellants are estopped from challenging that wrong pay scale was given to the respondents under a mistake. Moreover, we have held that the next promotional post of Tradesman was Foreman, therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the Board did not commit any mistake in granting higher grade pay scale and post of Foreman to the respondents. 10. A large number of employees have accepted voluntary retirement scheme and they have altered their position. It is not open to the appellants to withdraw the higher grade pay scale granted to the Tradesman of the post of Foreman who are employees of the Board. Promise on the part of the Board with regard to voluntary retirement scheme, offered to the employees in the year 2004, have been acted upon by the employees, in such circumstances, the Board cannot be permitted to take a different stand. The Government Resolutions dated 5.7.1991, 16.8.1994 and 14.8.1998 do not help the appellants. The recovery could not have been effected by the appellants against the respondents with effect from 1994 or from the date when higher grade pay scale were granted to them. 11. For the reasons given above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Appeals lack merit and are accordingly dismissed. Appeals dismissed.