Court Directs Pay-Scale Revision From 19 August 1987, Finds High Court Orders Suffered Typographical Errors

A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih heard an appeal by the petitioner challenging the dismissal of a contempt petition by the High Court of Meghalaya, Shillong, which arose from a writ order entitling the appellant to a revised pay-scale. The appeal concerned entitlement to a revised pay scale contiguous with a service-rule amendment and the alleged non-compliance of the High Court's direction.

The Court partly allowed the appeal and directed the respondents to revise the appellant’s pay-scale with effect from 19th August 1987 and to pay arrears with interest at 6% within three months. The Court noted that the High Court’s orders “suffered from typographical errors” and that the appellant “cannot be denied the same on account of some technicality.” The Court also observed that “No doubt that the High Court was justified in dismissing the contempt petition, inasmuch as in a technical sense, there was no contempt committed by the respondent(s).” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is apparent that both the orders suffered from typographical errors. The appellant, who was otherwise entitled to the revised pay-scale from 1987, cannot be denied the same on account of some technicality."

Background: The appellant joined service in 1981 as a Rifleman/Nursing Assistant (Sepoy) and was promoted to Draughtsman in 1983. The employer issued a policy document in March 1984 prescribing qualification requirements for a revised pay-scale; a subsequent amendment dated 19th October 1994 replaced the qualification requirement with a minimum experience criterion and provided that placement in the revised regular pay-scale would be subject to completion of a minimum period of service (four years) and the availability of vacancies and normal eligibility under recruitment rules. While notional benefit was noted from 13th May 1982, actual benefit was to be given from 1st November 1983.

The appellant claimed entitlement to revision under the amended policy but was not granted benefit and therefore filed Writ Petition (C) No. (SH) 283 of 2009 before the Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench. The writ was allowed by order dated 27th November 2012. That order, however, mistakenly recorded the year in which the four-year period completed as “1997” instead of “1987.” A review petition was filed and allowed on 8th February 2013, with the court indicating that the year should read “1987,” yet the typed order again recorded “1997.” The respondents challenged the writ decision before a Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal on 16th December 2014. A Special Leave Petition was dismissed by this Court on 4th May 2017.

Alleging non-compliance of the High Court’s directions, the appellant filed a contempt petition before the High Court, which the High Court dismissed. Before this Court, counsel for the appellant and the respondents argued the issue of compliance and entitlement. The Supreme Court found that while there was no technical contempt by the respondents, the substantive entitlement could not be defeated by typographical mistakes in the earlier orders. The Court therefore directed revision of pay-scale effective 19th August 1987 and ordered payment of arrears with 6% interest within three months. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 224 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 768 of 2019) Case Title: Dharamvir Singh v. Shri Rajiv Mehrishi and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri R. Shamshad, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri Brijender Chahar, Additional Solicitor General