Higher qualifications do not entitle employees to promotional pay scales bypassing mandatory statutory qualifying service requirements.

The appellant was appointed as a Technical Assistant (TE-1) on compassionate grounds on 16.06.2006 in the pay scale of Rs. 3050–4590

Following his probation, he was granted the higher pay scale of Rs. 5500–9000 (TE-3) vide order dated 01.02.2008

On 07.08.2012, the Deputy Director cancelled this grant and ordered recovery, which was initially set aside by the Director on 21.11.2012

However, on 22.11.2012, the Director issued a fresh order cancelling the 2008 pay scale on the grounds that it was granted in violation of the service rules

The appellant challenged this via Writ Petition No. 21618/2012, which was dismissed by the Writ Court on 07.03.2024

The present writ appeal was filed against said dismissal.

1. Whether the grant of the TE-3 pay scale (Rs. 5500–9000) to the appellant was valid under the Service Recruitment Rules, 2003

2. Whether the possession of a postgraduate qualification entitled the appellant to the TE-3 pay scale under the exception clause of the 2003 Rules

3. Whether the cancellation of the pay scale without a formal show cause notice or hearing invalidated the impugned order due to violation of the principles of natural justice

4. Whether the Director had the jurisdiction to review and cancel the earlier order granting the higher pay scale

The court primarily applied the Service Recruitment Rules, 2003 (Sewa Bharti Niyam, 2003), specifically Schedule-3 (Parishisht-3), which mandates that entry into service is at the TE-1 level and higher grades are promotional, requiring five years of qualifying service in the feeder cadre

It also interpreted Clause C(2) of the 2003 Rules regarding pay scale absorption for technical employees with postgraduate degrees, noting it applied only to employees serving at the time of the Rules' promulgation

The court applied the principle that an authority has the inherent power to rectify a patent error or an illegal grant of benefit, and that a lack of natural justice does not warrant interference if the original order was ex-facie contrary to law and no prejudice is shown

The court observed that the 2003 Rules established a hierarchical structure where TE-3 is a promotional post attainable only after five years in TE-2

Since the appellant was a direct recruit at the TE-1 level in 2006, the grant of the TE-3 pay scale in 2008—without the requisite qualifying service—was a violation of the statutory scheme

Regarding the postgraduate degree exception under Clause C(2), the court clarified that this was a one-time measure for existing employees and did not apply to the appellant, who joined after 2003

On the issue of natural justice, the court held that since the 2008 order was patently illegal, its correction did not require a formal show cause notice, especially as the appellant failed to prove a vested legal right to the pay scale

Finally, the court ruled that an authority is empowered to correct errors apparent on the face of the record, particularly when the benefit granted is contrary to governing rules

The court affirmed that the Director was competent to rectify the illegal pay fixation

Consequently, the High Court found no error in the Writ Court's decision, dismissed the writ appeal, and affirmed the order dated 07.03.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 21618/2012