Courts cannot perpetuate erroneous pay fixation merely because earlier orders approved it.

The respondent was appointed as a Fitter Grade-II in 1991.

His pay was fixed in the scale of Rs. 4,000–6,000 with effect from 1 January 1996, treating him as a Grade-I Fitter.

The Board later concluded that the relevant circular applied only to Electricians with the prescribed qualifications, not Fitters, and re-fixed his pay, also ordering recovery.

The respondent’s writ petitions challenging the Board’s proceedings were allowed by a common order dated 8 November 2013.

The Board’s reviews of that order were dismissed on 2 June 2025; it appealed from those dismissals.

Whether the Board could correct the respondent’s pay fixation on the ground that the higher scale under the relevant circular applied to Electricians, not Fitters.

Whether the earlier writ-court decisions could be relied on to perpetuate a pay-fixation error, and whether the review dismissals should be set aside.

Pay-scale determination and equation of posts are primarily executive functions involving specialist assessment; courts should exercise judicial restraint and not direct fixation of a particular scale. Judicial review may be warranted where an executive decision is unjust or prejudicial and ignores material or relevant facts, but the court must not itself prescribe a pay scale.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, (2002) 6 SCC 72, for the principle that granting pay scales is an executive function and ordinarily not a matter for judicial interference.

The Court also stated that an unintentional administrative error may be corrected, whereas knowing errors or irregularities may attract disciplinary proceedings under the applicable service rules.

The Court accepted the Board’s position that the circular of 10 June 1999 concerned Electricians and did not extend the Grade-I scale to Fitters.

The respondent’s inclusion in the 1999 pay-fixation proceedings was therefore treated as a mistake, which the Board could correct.

The Court considered that the material facts concerning the applicable category and scale had not been taken into account in the earlier writ decisions.

It held that those decisions should not be followed as precedent to continue the alleged error, particularly given the executive and specialist nature of pay fixation.

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