The Supreme Court of India adjudicated a protracted litigation involving the State of Uttar Pradesh and its employees regarding the implementation of revised pay scales. The Court ruled in favor of the State's 2011 Order, which granted the revised pay scale from 01.12.2008, contrary to the High Court's earlier directive for implementation from 01.01.1996. The Court invoked the doctrine of merger, upheld the State's policy, and provided relief to the retired employees by prohibiting recovery of excess payments made to them. The appeal was allowed with specified directions to ensure fair compensation and to prevent future litigation on similar grounds.

Introduction

The Court addressed an erroneous assumption that its decision mandated the State to implement a revised pay scale from 01.01.1996 instead of 01.12.2008.

Doctrine of Merger

The doctrine of merger applied, as established in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, making the Supreme Court's order the final and binding one.

State's 2011 Order

The State's 2011 Order restructured posts and implemented a pay scale of 7500-12000 from 01.01.2006, with actual benefits from 01.12.2008.

High Court's Error

The High Court misinterpreted the Supreme Court's directive, assuming its previous decision was still enforceable.

Leniency on Delay

The State's delay in filing an intra-court appeal should have been assessed leniently due to financial implications.

Financial and Judicial Implications

The Court acknowledged the financial burden on the State but emphasized equity and fairness in judicial decisions.

Finality and Precedent

The Court aimed to provide finality to the issue, highlighting the alignment with its previous decision and the doctrine of merger.

Directions and Conclusion

1. The appeal is allowed in part.
2. The 2011 Order is approved in its entirety.
3. Respondents are entitled to the pay scale as per the 2011 Order.
4. No recovery of overpaid amounts from retired employees.
5. Arrears to be paid within four months with interest.
6. Re-fixation of pension and benefits for retirees.
7. The order applies only to the State's Education Department employees.
8. The order is not a precedent for other departments.

Conclusion

The appeal is disposed of with the specified directions, ensuring compensation and preventing similar future litigations.