R.V. Raveendran, J. - (1.) All these appeals question the common order dated 20.1.2005 of the Calcutta High Court allowing a batch of appeals by the employees of the High Court. The facts are similar and for convenience, we will refer to the facts from C.A. No. 3480/2005.
(2.) One Gopniath Dey (for short Dey) was appointed as a Section Writer/Typist in the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court on 19.3.1964. He was brought under the regular establishment on 1.9.1979 and was allowed the pay-scale of Rs. 230-425 under the West Bengal Services Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules, 1970 (for short WB (ROPA) Rules, 1970). The said pay-scale was subsequently revised as Rs. 300-685/- with effect from 1.4.1981 and under the WB (ROPA) Rules, 1981. He was granted a promotion as Typist, Grade I in the scale of Rs. 380-910/- with effect from 2.4.1981. He appeared in the selection examination for the post of Lower Division Assistant and was selected and appointed on 9.9.1985. On such appointment his pay was fixed as Rs. 550 in the scale of Rs. 300-685/-, taking into account his last pay drawn in the former Grade-I Post. On exercising option under the W.B. ROPA Rules, 1990, his pay scale was revised and refixed with effect from 1.8.1986. On 1.4.1989, he was awarded the second higher scale under the 20 years Career Advancement Benefit Scheme.
(3.) Sixty three employees who were senior to Gopinath Dey in the cadre of Lower Division Assistants, working in the Original Side of the High Court, submitted a representation to the Chief Justice on 27.6.1997 requesting that by relaxing Rule 55(4) of West Bengal Service Rules - Part I (for short WBSR) their pay be stepped up and re-fixed on par with the pay of their junior Gopinath Dey. The Chief Justice referred the representation to a Special Committee of three Judges and the said Committee submitted a report dated 2.12.1998 recommending rejection of the representation with the following observations: In our opinion Gopinath Dey has been given certain benefits to which he was not entitled to in law. We are of the view, the Rule 55(4) of WBSR Part-I cannot be said to have any application whatsoever in this case. It appears to us that Sri Gopinath Dey was granted undue benefits. The whole fact was not placed before us as to how he could be granted such benefits to which he was not entitled. If an illegality has been committed in the case of one employee, it is well settled in law, that on the basis of such illegality another person cannot claim the same benefit. Illegality is incurable as has been held in, AIR 1974 SC 2177 and, AIR 1995 SC 705. Furthermore, Article 14 of the Constitution of India contains a positive concept. Reference may be made in this connection the decision reported in, (1996) 2 SCC 459. See also 1998 Lab I.C 180 and 1998 Lab I.C 1976. In view of the decisions, illegality cannot be directed to be perpetuated. This illegal benefits granted to Sri Gopinath Dey, if any, cannot be extended to memorialists. (Emphasis supplied);