An unchallenged appointment order bars a claim to a higher pay scale contrary to its terms.

The respondents were appointed as Rig Helpers on 7 October 1987, under appointment orders specifying a pay scale of Rs. 505–845.

They sought the higher pay scale of Rs. 610, relying on the Board Proceedings in B.P. No. 505 dated 12 December 1986 and benefits granted to other employees.

Their writ petitions were dismissed on 17 October 2012. In 2018, a Division Bench granted them liberty to seek review because a subsequent wage-fixation proceeding had not been brought to the Single Judge’s attention. The review applications were allowed on 3 August 2022, granting the revised scale; the Board appealed.

Whether employees appointed after B.P. No. 505, at a pay scale expressly stated in their appointment orders, were entitled to the higher scale claimed under that proceeding.

Whether the higher scale granted to other employees required the same benefit to be extended to the respondents.

The Court considered Regulation 50 of the TWAD Board Service Regulations, 1972, and B.P. No. 505 dated 12 December 1986, which concerned revision of pay scales for specified categories of posts.

It held that entitlement must be assessed against the employee’s appointment order and the relevant post and scale; an employee who accepted appointment at a specified scale could not later claim a higher scale merely on the basis of educational qualification.

Relying on A. Sundaram v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020 MHC 2249), the Court held that erroneous individual orders or implementations do not create a precedent for perpetuating an error.

It also relied on State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, (2002) 6 SCC 72, for the principle that pay-scale fixation is an executive function warranting judicial restraint, subject to judicial review where relevant facts have been ignored or the decision is unjust and prejudicial.

The respondents’ appointment orders expressly fixed their pay at Rs. 505–845, and they were appointed in 1987, after B.P. No. 505 was issued.

The Court found that the Board Proceedings concerned specified posts and required consideration of the appointment order and applicable post; the respondents had not challenged the scale stated in their appointment orders.

The Court further held that benefits granted to other employees, whether by court orders or implementation, could not justify continuing an error where the relevant facts had not been considered.

Given the executive nature and wider consequences of pay fixation, the Court found no basis to sustain the higher-scale relief.

The original dismissal of the respondents’ writ petitions consequently remained in effect.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.