Employees appointed after a pay-revision order cannot claim its benefits absent entitlement under their appointment terms.

The respondents were appointed as Rig Helper and Helper in 1987.

The TWAD Board had issued B.P.No.505 on 12 December 1986 revising pay scales for specified categories of posts; the respondents later sought a higher scale by relying on that proceeding and on benefits granted to other employees following a Labour Court award.

After their writ petitions were dismissed, a Division Bench granted them liberty to seek review.

The Single Judge allowed the review applications and granted the revised pay-scale benefit.

The Board appealed against those orders.

Whether employees appointed after B.P.No.505 could claim a higher pay scale under that proceeding, notwithstanding the scale and terms of their appointment.

Whether benefits granted to other employees, including through prior court orders or their implementation, entitled the respondents to the same benefit.

Pay-scale fixation and the equation of posts are primarily executive functions requiring institutional expertise; courts should exercise judicial restraint and interfere only within the limits of judicial review (State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, (2002) 6 SCC 72).

A mistaken or individual judicial order does not establish a precedent requiring the same error to be repeated (A. Sundaram v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2020 MHC 2249).

In assessing entitlement to a scale, the appointment order and the post and conditions under which the employee was appointed are relevant.

B.P.No.505 pre-dated the respondents’ appointments and applied to specified categories of posts and employees.

The Court held that entitlement could not be determined solely by a candidate’s educational qualification: the appointment order and the post to which the employee was appointed had to be considered.

The respondents had accepted their appointments on the stipulated terms and could not later claim a higher scale merely on the basis of having passed SSLC.

Nor did benefits granted to other employees—potentially through erroneous orders or implementation—require the Board to perpetuate the same result.

The Single Judge had not considered these material facts.

The Court set aside the orders dated 1 June 2023 allowing the review applications, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.

No costs were ordered.