Specific service recruitment rules prevail over general pay rules in prescribing post-specific scales.

The applicant was selected by the Jammu & Kashmir Services Selection Board for the post of Driver in the Industries and Commerce (Handicrafts) Department pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 03 of 2012 and was appointed on 18 December 2018.

The departmental indent and the Jammu & Kashmir Handicrafts (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2005, notified by SRO-58 dated 3 March 2005, prescribed the pay scale of ₹4,000–6,000 for the post of Driver, corresponding to ₹5,200–20,200 plus Grade Pay of ₹2,400.

However, the applicant’s appointment order placed him in Pay Level-2, corresponding to the lower entry scale under SRO-18 dated 19 January 1998.

The applicant sought correction of his pay scale, consequential arrears, and fixation of seniority.

The departmental authorities acknowledged the discrepancy and referred the matter to the Administrative and Finance Departments; the Finance Department advised compliance with SRO-18 and amendment of the Recruitment Rules.

The writ petition originally filed before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court was transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as T.A. No. 193/2022.

Whether the applicant, having been selected for the post of Driver under the pay scale prescribed by the Jammu & Kashmir Handicrafts (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2005, could validly be appointed in the lower Pay Level-2 by applying SRO-18 of 1998?

Whether the general provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 could override the specific pay-scale prescription contained in the 2005 Handicrafts Recruitment Rules in the absence of a valid amendment to the latter Rules?

Whether the applicant was entitled to consequential pay benefits and fixation of seniority in accordance with the applicable Rules?

The Tribunal applied the Jammu & Kashmir Handicrafts (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2005, notified by SRO-58, which specifically prescribed the ₹4,000–6,000 pay scale for the post of Driver.

Applying the principle generalia specialibus non derogant, the Tribunal held that a specific and later special rule governing the Handicrafts Department prevails over a general rule on the same subject.

The Tribunal further relied on Suresh Nanda v. CBI, Commercial Tax Officer v. Binani Cements Ltd., R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, and Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank for the principles governing the precedence of special provisions over general provisions.

The Tribunal distinguished Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. Union of India, which holds that an advertisement cannot override statutory service rules, because the applicant’s claim was supported not merely by the advertisement but also by the applicable 2005 Recruitment Rules and the departmental indent.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim was not based solely on an erroneous advertisement. The departmental indent, the selection process, and the 2005 Recruitment Rules all reflected the ₹4,000–6,000 scale for the post of Driver.

Although SRO-18 of 1998 prescribed a lower entry grade for Drivers, it was a general rule, whereas the 2005 Rules were a specific departmental enactment governing the applicant’s post.

The respondents produced no amendment, operative before the applicant’s selection or appointment, substituting the scale prescribed by the 2005 Rules with the lower scale under SRO-18.

Further, the Finance Department’s advice to “follow SRO-18” and “amend the Recruitment Rules accordingly” demonstrated that the Rules had not yet been amended and that the advice could not itself operate as a retrospective statutory amendment.

Accordingly, the applicant could not be placed in Pay Level-2 merely by relying on SRO-18.

The Tribunal also rejected the objections of delay and concealment because the matter had been pursued departmentally and no sufficient material established suppression disentitling the applicant from relief.

It directed the respondents to reconsider and fix the applicant’s pay with reference to the ₹4,000–6,000 scale prescribed for the post of Driver under the 2005 Recruitment Rules, while permitting future fixation in the appropriate grade or level if those Rules were subsequently amended.

The respondents were also directed to fix the applicant’s seniority at the appropriate place in accordance with the Rules and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of receiving the order.

Any consequential monetary benefits found payable were to be calculated and released in accordance with the applicable Rules.

No order as to costs was made.