when once it has been found that they are not lawfully entitled to the same. It is well-settled by now that a person cannot invoke Article 14 to claim a benefit extended to someone similarly placed if he is not lawfully entitled to such benefit in the first place

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9533-9537 OF 2019
 (arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) NOS.5395-5399 of 2016)
P. Singaravelan & Ors. Etc. Etc. ..Appellants
Versus
The District Collector, Tiruppur and
DT & Ors. Etc. Etc. ..Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9538-9546 OF 2019
(arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5605-5613 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9547-9549 OF 2019
(arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5391-5393 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9551-9559 OF 2019
(arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5367-5375 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9560-9561 OF 2019
(arising out of SLP(C) Nos. of 2019)
 [Diary No. 42301/2017]
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
 CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5395-5399 OF 2016;
 CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5605-5613 OF 2016;
 CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5391-5393 OF 2016, AND
 CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5367-5375 OF 2016
Leave granted.
1
2. These appeals have been filed against the common final
judgment and order dated 08.07.2015 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Madras allowing writ appeals filed by the
Respondents herein, being state authorities, and dismissing
writ petitions filed by the Appellants herein, being drivers in
various departments of the Government of Tamil Nadu, with
respect to the Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay
applicable to them.
3. The Appellants, in a nutshell, are claiming the grant of
Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay in the bracket
of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively in terms of
G.O. Ms. No. 162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated
13.04.1998 (for short “G.O. Ms. No. 162”), which has been
granted to around 3000 similarly placed employees. The
Appellants place reliance on various decisions rendered by this
Court and the High Court of Madras in several writ petitions and
appeals granting similar pay scales to the petitioners therein.
Thus, it is argued that the impugned judgment of the High
Court has erroneously differed from the consistent view taken
in these decisions.
4. On the other hand, the Respondents argue in favour of the
impugned judgment, claiming that the initial grant of the
2
claimed pay scale to some drivers (out of which the entire
cluster of litigations arose) was merely on account of an error
on the part of officials in some government departments. Thus,
it is submitted that the applicable scales of pay are Rs. 4000-
6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively for the Selection Grade
and Special Grade.
5. It has come to our attention that several Benches of this
Court have dismissed SLPs against decisions of the High Court
fixing pay scales of the concerned drivers therein at Rs. 5000-
8000 for the Selection Grade and Rs. 5500-9000 for the Special
Grade in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 162. We deem it fit to refer to
the orders passed by this Court in this respect:
WA No. 67 of 2012 SLP (Civil) CC No.
14715 of 2012
Dismissed on
10.09.2012
WA No. 383 of 2009 SLP (Civil) No.
35969 of 2009
Dismissed on
25.02.2015
WA No. 391 of 2009 SLP (Civil) No. 6522
of 2010
Dismissed on
25.02.2015
WA No. 382 to 388 of
2009
SLP (Civil) No. 6523-
6530 of 2010
Dismissed on
25.02.2015
WP No. 462 of 2012
WP No. 24912 of
2010
WA No. 383-391 of
2009
SLP (Civil) No.
22491 of 2012
Dismissed on
25.02.2015
WP -29119- 2012 SLP (Civil) No.
33037of 2013
Dismissed on
25.02.2015
3
WA No. 791 and 792
of 2013
WP No. 2929 and
2930 of 2012
SLP (Civil) No.
33588 of 2013
Dismissed on
25.02.2015
WA No. 130, 131, 132
of 2011
SLP (Civil) CC No.
12886-12888 of
2013
Dismissed on
19.07.2013
WA No. 2243 of 2012 SLP (Civil) CC No.
6602 of 2013
Dismissed on
27.09.2013
WA No. 526 of 2013 SLP (Civil) CC No.
14007 of 2013
Dismissed on
21.08.2013
WA No. 24899 of
2014
SLP (Civil) No.
34265 of 2014
Dismissed on
06.02.2017
6. Be that as it may, it must be noted that all the above
orders of this Court were passed at the stage of admission
itself. Even the order dated 25.02.2015, passed by a 3-Judge
Bench of this Court while dealing with a batch of appeals
having SLP (C) No. 35969/2009 as the lead matter, stated as
follows:
“UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the
following
ORDER
Dismissed.”
7. It is evident that all the above orders were non-speaking
orders, inasmuch as they were confined to a mere refusal to
grant special leave to appeal to the petitioners therein. At this
juncture, it is useful to recall that it is well-settled that the
dismissal of an SLP against an order or judgment of a lower
4
forum is not an affirmation of the same. If such an order of this
Court is non-speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of
law under Article 141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine
of merger. The following discussion on this proposition in
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, is
relevant in this regard:
“(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against
an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other
authority before superior forum and such superior
forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put
in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate
forum merges in the decision by the superior forum
and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative
and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law.
(ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the
Constitution is divisible into two stages. The first
stage is upto the disposal of prayer for special leave
to file an appeal. The second stage commences if
and when the leave to appeal is granted and the
special leave petition is converted into an appeal.
(iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of
universal or unlimited application. It will depend on
the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior
forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge
laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative of
the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction
should be capable of reversing, modifying or
affirming the order put in issue before it. Under
Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court
may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree
or order appealed against while exercising its
appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the
discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for
5
special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can
therefore be applied to the former and not to the
latter.
(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be
a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either
case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An
order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand
substituted in place of the order under challenge. All
that it means is that the Court was not inclined to
exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being
filed.
(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking
order i.e. gives reasons for refusing the grant of
leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly,
the statement of law contained in the order is a
declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the
meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly,
other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated
in the order are the findings recorded by the
Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto
and also the court, tribunal or authority in any
proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial
discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court
of the country. But, this does not amount to saying
that the order of the court, tribunal or authority
below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme
Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the
order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding
as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between
the parties.
(vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been
invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the
doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal,
modification or merely affirmation.
(vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition
seeking leave to appeal having been converted into
6
an appeal before the Supreme Court the jurisdiction
of the High Court to entertain a review petition is lost
thereafter as provided by sub-rule (1) of Order 47
Rule 1 CPC.”
(emphasis added)
This view has also been adopted in a plethora of decisions
of this Court, including the recent decision in Khoday
Distilleries v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare
Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376.
8. Applying these observations to the present case, it is clear
that there has been no pronouncement by this Court
constituting the law of the land as to the interpretation of G.O.
Ms. No. 162. In such a situation, it is open for us to proceed to
decide the instant appeals uninfluenced by the prior orders of
this Court dismissing SLPs against the grant of relief to drivers
placed similarly as the Appellants herein.
9. It is evident that the entire controversy in this case hinges
on the interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 162. Vide this order, the
Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 (for short “the
1998 Rules”) were notified, revising 25 standard pay scales on
a pay scale-to-pay scale basis for State Government employees
and teachers. While Schedule I to the 1998 Rules indicated the
revised pay scales, Schedule II specified the Selection Grade
7
and Special Grade pay scales applicable for each revised
Ordinary Grade. Further, it was stated in paragraph 4 of the
G.O. that for posts with no promotional avenues, the Selection
Grade and Special Grade scales as indicated in Schedule II
would be applicable.
10. It is not in dispute that drivers in various departments of
the Government of Tamil Nadu were entitled to revised
Ordinary Grade pay scales as per Schedule I. Further, since
they did not have any promotional avenues, Selection Grade
and Special Grade pay scales under Schedule II would become
applicable as and when they completed 10 and 20 years of
service respectively. The dispute here lies with respect to the
entries under Schedules I and II applicable to the post of
drivers. It is the submission of the Respondents that prior to the
revision of pay scales under the 1998 Rules, drivers were
entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 975-1660 as determined by G.O.
No. 818, Finance, dated 09.09.1989. Accordingly, the
corresponding revised Ordinary Grade pay scale under
Schedule I of the 1998 Rules would be as per Entry No. XX
below:
 SCHEDULE -I
LIST OF PAY SCALES
Grou Existing Scale Revised Scale
8
p
(1)
(2) (3)
Rs. Rs.
I 5500-200-6500 17400-500-21900
II 5100-150-5700 16400-450-20000
III 4500-150-5700 15000-400-18600
IV 4100-125-4850-150-5300 14300-400-18300
V 3950-125-4700-150-5000 12750-375-16500
VI 3700-125-4700-150-5000 12000-375-16500
VII 3000-100-3500-125-4500 10000-325-15200
VIII 2500-75-2800-100-4200 9100-275-14050
IX 2200-75-2800-100-4000 8000-275-13500
X 2000-60-2300-75-3200-100-3500 6500-200-11100
XI 2000-60-2300-75-3200 6500-200-10500
XII 1820-60-2300-75-3200 5900-200-9900
XIII 1640-60-2600-75-2900 5500-175-9000
XIV 1600-50-2300-60-2660 5300-150-8300
XV 1400-40-1600-50-2300-60-2600 5000-150-8000
XVI 1350-30-1440-40-1800-50-2200 4500-125-7000
XVII 1320-30-1560-40-2040 4300-100-6000
XVIII 1200-30-1560-40-2040 4000-100-6000
XIX 1100-25-1150-30-1660 3625-85-4900
XX 975-25-1150-30-1660 3200-85-4900
XXI 950-20-1150-25-1500 3050-75-3950-80-4590
XXII 825-15-900-20-1200 2750-70-3800-75-4400
XXIII 800-15-1010-20-1150 2650-65-3300-70-4000
XXIV 775-12-835-15-1030 2610-60-3150-65-3540
XXV 750-12-870-15-945 2550-55-2660-60-3200
(emphasis added)
11. Relying on this, the Respondents submit that the drivers
are entitled to a revised Ordinary Grade pay scale of Rs. 3200-
4900 only. As regards the Selection Grade and Special Grade
pay scales applicable, the Respondents claim that the
Appellants are entitled to pay scales of Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs.
4300-6000 respectively as per Serial No. 6 of Schedule II, which
is corresponding to Entry No. XX of Schedule I. On the other
hand, the Appellants claim that they are entitled to the revised
Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000
9
and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule
II. It would be useful to refer to Schedule II in this regard:
SCHEDULE - II
REVISED SELECTION GRADE AND SPECIAL GRADE
SCALE OF PAY
Sl.
Nos
.
(1)
Ordinary Grade (2) Selection Grade
(3)
Special Grade
(4)
Rs. Rs. Rs.
1 2550-55-2660-60-3200 2650-65-3300-70-
4000
2750-70-3800-75-
4400
2 2610-60-3150-65-3540 2750-70-3800-75-
4400
3050-75-3950-80-
4590
3 2650-65-3300-70-4000 3050-75-3950-80-
4590
3200-85-4900
4 2750-70-3800-75-4400 3050-75-3950-80-
4590
3200-85-4900
5 3050-75-3950-80-4590 4000-100-6000 4300-100-6000
6 3200-85-4900 4000-100-6000 4300-100-6000
7 3625-85-4900 4300-100-6000 4500-125-7000
8 4000-100-6000 5000-150-8000 5500-175-9000
9 4300-100-6000 5000-150-8000 5500-175-9000
10 4500-125-7000 5300-150-8300 5900-200-9900
11 5000-150-8000 5500-175-9000 6500-200-10500
12 5300-150-8300 6500-200-10500 8000-275-13500
13 5500-175-9000 6500-200-10500 8000-275-13500
14 5900-200-9900 8000-275-13500 9100-275-14050
15 6500-200-10500 8000-275-13500 9100-275-14050
16 6500-200-11100 9100-275-14050 10000-325-15200
17 8000-275-13500 9100-275-14050 10000-325-15200
18 9100-275-14050 10000-325-15200 12000-375-16500
(emphasis added)
12. Indeed, the genesis of the entire dispute lies in the fixation
of Selection and Special Grade pay scales of certain drivers by
certain local departments as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule II.
Pursuant to this, the Joint Secretary to the Government,
Finance Department, issued Letter No. 96900/PC/98-2 dated
10
31.12.1998 to all Secretaries to the Government and Heads of
Department, on the basis that such fixations were erroneous
and needed to be reviewed, with a direction to effect recoveries
wherever excess payments had been made.
13. In 2006, the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative
Reforms (E) Department rejected the representation of the
Tamil Nadu Government Department Drivers’ Central
Association seeking fixation of Selection Grade and Special
Grade pay scales at Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000
respectively, vide the proceedings in Lr. No. 13921/K/2005-1
dated 25.04.2006. This was challenged by the drivers’
association before the High Court in W.P. No. 34800 of 2006,
which was allowed on the ground that the said proceedings did
not refer to G.O. Ms. No. 162. The association was directed to
make a fresh representation before the Finance Department, to
be decided in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 162.
14. Such representation, however, was also rejected by the
Finance Department vide letter No. 63685/CMPC/2006-1, dated
01.10.2007, which states as follows:
“3. Therefore, the Drivers are entitled for the
Selection Grade / Special Grade scales of pay as
ordered in Schedule-II of G.O. Ms. No. 162, Finance
(PC) Department, dated 13-4-98, based on the
11
ordinary grade scale of pay granted to the posts of
Drivers. As such all categories on par with Drivers in
the Ordinary Grade of Rs.3200-4900 are entitled for
the Selection Grade of Rs.4000-6000 and Special
Grade of Rs.4300-6000 respectively. The above
Government Order has been issued based on the
recommendations of the Official Committee, 1998
and the Drivers are not denied the benefits ordered
in the Government Order cited. Hence, your request
has no merit to consider as requested.”
15. A batch of writ petitions challenging the above order was
subsequently filed before the High Court. These writ petitions
were allowed by the High Court vide judgment dated
30.09.2008 in W.P. No. 4288/2008 and connected matters
thereto, with a direction for the fixation of pay scales in
accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 162. This was affirmed by the
Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment dated
01.09.2009 in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009.
16. Subsequently, several other writ petitions were filed by
other similarly situated drivers seeking the benefit of the same
higher pay scale. These petitions were also allowed on the
basis of the previous decisions discussed above, with the
notable exceptions of the judgment dated 18.11.2013 passed
by the Single Judge of the High Court in W.P. No. 1418/2001
12
and matters connected thereto, and the impugned judgment
herein.
17. Concluding that the drivers were not entitled to the higher
claimed pay scales, these two judgments differed from the
consistent view taken in the preceding judgments and orders
based on a scrutiny of G.O. Ms. No. 162 and the prior history of
pay scales payable to the drivers. They justified differing from
the decisions of the Division Benches of the High Court on the
premise that there was no specific direction by the learned
Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 (supra), or the Division
Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, granting the Selection Grade
and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-
9000 respectively. With respect to subsequent writ petitions
granting these higher pay scales, it was noted that they had
been disposed of at the admission stage itself (in some cases
even without notice to the government) and could thus be
disregarded.
18. Given this departure in the impugned judgment from the
consistent view taken by prior coordinate Benches of the High
Court, it is necessary to ascertain whether the High Court
should have instead referred the matter to a larger Bench for
consideration. This merits a closer reading of the decisions of
13
the Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 (supra) and of the
Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009. As discussed above,
the principal issue before the Courts in these decisions was the
validity of the order dated 01.10.2007 passed by the Finance
Department rejecting the claim of the drivers’ association for
Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000
and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively.
18.1 The Single Judge in W.P. No. 4288/2008 (supra) and the
Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 both set aside the
order dated 01.10.2007 based on the fact that the claimed
higher pay scales had already been granted and were still
being received by certain other drivers in several government
departments, as per G.O. Ms. No. 162. Further, and more
importantly, it was held that the letter dated 31.12.1998
wherein such higher pay scale fixations were deemed to be
erroneous, would not have the effect of reducing the
entitlement of drivers, as such a letter could not act as a
substitute for modification of the G.O. itself. Thus, even though
the Court did not give any express direction to grant the higher
pay scales as per Serial No. 8 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules,
we find that the same was implicit in the Court’s directions for
fixing the pay scales in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162. In other
14
words, it cannot be said that the High Court in W.A. Nos. 383-
391/2009 did not affirm the drivers’ claim that they were
entitled to the higher Selection and Special Grade pay scales of
Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively.
18.2 However, in the impugned judgment, the High Court
only focused on the fact that the conclusion reached by the
coordinate Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009 was for
appropriate fixation of pay scales under G.O. Ms. No. 162 only,
and there was no specific direction for grant of the Selection
Grade and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs.
5500-9000 respectively. On this basis, the High Court
proceeded to determine the question of pay scale entitlement
and took a view diametrically opposite to that of the coordinate
Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, finding that the Appellantdrivers were only entitled to the Selection Grade and Special
Grade pay scales of Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000
respectively. In our considered opinion, such an approach is
based on a narrow reading of the decision of the coordinate
Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-391/2009, as it fails to appreciate the
implicit direction in this order to grant the higher pay scales to
the drivers, as mentioned supra. Thus, it appears that the High
Court differed from the view taken previously by a coordinate
15
Bench based on a misreading of the same. In such a situation,
once it was found by the High Court that it was in disagreement
with the holding of its coordinate Bench in W.A. Nos. 383-
391/2009, it should not have proceeded to decide the matter
by itself, and in the interest of judicial discipline, should instead
have referred the matter to a larger Bench for its consideration.
19. Be that as it may, in the interest of expeditious disposal of
the matter, we do not deem it fit to remand the matter to the
High Court for fresh consideration at this stage. Thus, we shall
proceed to decide it on merits accordingly.
20. In our considered opinion, apart from claiming parity with
similarly placed individuals, the Appellants have been unable to
justify how and why they are entitled to the Selection Grade
and Special Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-
9000 as specified in Serial No. 8 of Schedule II to the 1998
Rules, in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162. On the other hand, on
perusing the series of revisions made to the pay scales
applicable to drivers employed with the State Government, we
find that the applicable pay scales for the Selection Grade and
Special Grade would be as per Serial No. 6 of Schedule II to the
1998 Rules, i.e. Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively.
16
20.1 As the High Court has also noted in the impugned
judgment, the pay scales of the Appellants can be traced back
to G.O. Ms. No. 666, Finance dated 27.06.1989, by which the
State Government issued the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay
Rules, 1989, implementing the recommendations of the Vth
Tamil Nadu Pay Commission. Under these rules, the original
and revised pay scales of 30 common categories of posts were
specified. The scale of pay for drivers was mentioned at Serial
No. 11 in the first part of the Schedule to these rules, having
been revised from Rs. 610-1075 to Rs. 950-1500.
20.2 The next revision came through G.O. Ms. No. 818,
Finance, dated 09.09.1989, whereby drivers’ pay scale was
increased to Rs. 975-1660. Later, under G.O. Ms. No. 304,
Finance dated 28.03.1990, Special Grade and Selection Grade
scales of pay were introduced for persons who had completed
10 years and 20 years of service respectively. For the post of
drivers carrying the Ordinary Grade pay scale of Rs. 975-1660,
the Selection and Special Grade brackets were set as Rs. 1200-
2040 and Rs. 1320-2040 respectively.
20.3 Finally, when the 1998 Rules were introduced through
G.O. Ms. No. 162, the post-wise determination of pay scales
was replaced by a pay scale-to-pay scale basis determination.
17
As already seen in Schedule I of the said rules, the pay scale of
Rs. 975-1660 applicable to drivers was revised to Rs. 3200-
4900. For this, the corresponding Selection and Special Grades
specified in Schedule II were Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000
respectively.
21. Against this backdrop, we find substance in the
submission of the Respondents that the Appellants are not
lawfully entitled to the claimed Selection Grade and Special
Grade pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000
respectively in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162.
22. The only question to be settled, therefore, is whether the
Appellants are entitled to claim parity with the drivers who
have so far been granted benefits vide the orders of the High
Court and this Court, as mentioned supra in paragraph 5.
23. In this respect, we find that the High Court in the
impugned judgment was correct in concluding that the
Appellants cannot claim such relief on the strength of Article 14
of the Constitution of India, when once it has been found that
they are not lawfully entitled to the same. It is well-settled by
now that a person cannot invoke Article 14 to claim a benefit
extended to someone similarly placed if he is not lawfully
entitled to such benefit in the first place. Article 14 embodies
18
the concept of positive equality alone, and not negative
equality, that is to say, it cannot be relied upon to perpetuate
an illegality or irregularity. In fact, this Court has opined that
this principle extends to orders passed by judicial fora as well.
Thus, the jurisdiction of a higher court cannot be invoked on
the basis of a wrong order passed by a lower forum. In this
respect, it would be fruitful to refer to the following passage
from the decision of this Court in Basawaraj v. Land
Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81:
“8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of
the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality
or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions
made in other cases. The said provision does not
envisage negative equality but has only a positive
aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons
have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently
or by mistake, such an order does not confer any
legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If
a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be
perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be
claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be
enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If
an illegality and irregularity has been committed in
favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a
wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum,
others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or
superior court for repeating or multiplying the same
irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly
wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any
particular party does not entitle any other party to
claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision.
19
Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too
far for otherwise it would make functioning of
administration impossible. (Vide Chandigarh
Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [(1995) 1 SCC 745 : AIR 1995
SC 705] , Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of
Haryana [(2005) 9 SCC 164 : AIR 2005 SC 565] , K.K.
Bhalla v. State of M.P. [(2006) 3 SCC 581 : AIR 2006
SC 898] and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab [(2010) 11
SCC 455 : AIR 2010 SC 1937].)”
This proposition was also recently affirmed by a 3-Judge
Bench of this Court in State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar
Senapati (Civil Appeal No. 7295/2019, judgment dated
16.09.2019).
24. Thus, it is evident that the Appellants cannot claim the
Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay of Rs. 5000-
8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively, solely on the strength of
earlier decisions of the High Court, without showing how they,
themselves, are entitled to such benefit in the first place. In
such a situation, we are of the considered view that the
Appellants can only be granted the benefit of the Selection
Grade and Special Grade scales of pay to which they are
lawfully entitled in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162, i.e. Rs. 4000-
6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively.
20
25. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, we find no
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The instant
appeals are hereby dismissed, and the impugned judgment is
confirmed.
 CIVIL APPEALS @ SLPs [Diary No. 42301/2017]
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Principal Secretary, Finance (Pay Cell)
Department against the judgment and order dated 05.01.2015
of the High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 2363 of 2013, and the
final judgment and order dated 11.09.2017 dismissing Review
Application No. 153 of 2016 against the same, with respect to
the pay scale entitlements of certain drivers employed by the
High Court of Madras in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 162.
3. These appeals arise out of virtually the same factual
background as those disposed of above. W.P. No. 2363 of 2013
was filed by the concerned drivers employed with the High
Court of Madras, seeking quashing of paragraph 5 of Letter No.
63305/Pay Cell/2010-1 dated 08.11.2010 issued by the State
Government, on which basis the Government had denied them
the benefit of Selection and Special Grade pay scales as per
21
Serial No. 8 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules under G.O. Ms. No.
162. The petitioners therein also sought a direction to the State
Government for appropriate fixation of pay scales in the above
terms.
4. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition on the ground
that the drivers were not entitled to any promotional avenues,
and hence were entitled to the full benefits of the appropriate
pay scale under Schedule II of the 1998 Rules. It was further
found that the drivers were entitled to benefits under Serial No.
8 of the said schedule, looking to the disposal of similar matters
by the High Court and this Court. The review application filed
against the same also came to be dismissed by the High Court.
5. As discussed supra, it has not been disputed before us
that the drivers concerned were not entitled to any promotional
avenues. Thus, it is evident that the High Court rightly
concluded that the drivers were entitled to the full benefits of
the appropriate pay scale under Schedule II of the 1998 Rules.
However, in light of our foregoing finding that persons
employed in the post of drivers in various departments in the
Government of Tamil Nadu are only entitled to Ordinary,
Selection and Special Grade pay scales in terms of Serial No. 6
of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules, i.e. at Rs. 3200-4900, Rs.
22
4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000 respectively, we have no
hesitation to hold that the High Court erred in directing fixation
of such pay scales to drivers employed at the High Court in
terms of Serial No. 8 of the Schedule II, fixing Selection Grade
and Special Grade scales of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-
9000 respectively.
6. The appeals are therefore allowed partly, to the extent
that the State Government is directed to fix the pay scale
benefits available to the Respondents in the instant appeals in
terms of Serial No. 6 of Schedule II of the 1998 Rules under
G.O. Ms. No. 162.
…..…………................................J.
 (MOHAN M.
SHANTANAGOUDAR)
….…………………………...............J.
 (KRISHNA MURARI)
New Delhi;
December 18, 2019
23