Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Service

HELD appellants had already got three promotions before they got themselves transferred to Kerala University. The salary drawn by them of the higher post was protected – special class of employees were already drawing salary of the higher post which in terms of the policy for inter-university transfer was protected, though they were placed at the bottom of the seniority at the entry level.

Bysclaw

May 3, 2023
Service Matters

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

SMT. SASIKALA DEVI. P — Appellant

Vs.

THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent

( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. 8716 of 2012 with Civil Appeal No.8717 of 2012

Decided on : 28-04-2023

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. A. Raghunath, Advocate and Mr. V. K. Sidharthan, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Advocate, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Advocate, Mr. Alim Anvar, Advocate, Mr. Jishnu M L, Advocate, Mr. Priyanka Prakash, Advocate and Mr. G. Prakash, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Cases Referred

 

  • State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washter) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334

 

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J. – This order will dispose of two appeals bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 8716 and 8717 of 2012.

2. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala passed in W.A. Nos.1904 and 1975 of 2008 is under challenge before this Court. Vide aforesaid judgment, the Single Bench judgment of the High Court passed in O.P. No.38578/2002 and W.P.(C) No.15190/2006 dated 20.02.2008 was reversed.

3. The facts are being noticed from Civil Appeal No.8716 of 2012, as common questions of law are involved.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Grade-II in the University of Calicut on 04.05.1988. She was promoted as Assistant Grade-I on 21.12.1989. Thereafter, she was transferred to M.G. University on 04.02.1992 in terms of applicable guidelines for inter-university transfers. On 26.02.1993, she was promoted as Senior Grade Assistant and thereafter, on 03.03.1999 as Selection Grade Assistant.

5. On 04.11.1999, the appellant applied for inter- university transfer to Kerala University. As per the policy for inter-university transfer, the appellant was placed as the junior-most Assistant in the entry cadre of Assistant Grade-II, which was the post on which she was appointed in the year 1988 in the University of Calicut. On 29.09.2001, her name was included in the list of eligible Assistant Grade-II who were entitled to be promoted as Assistant Grade-I. On 22.05.2002, the appellant was promoted as Assistant Grade-I. Her pay was fixed on the promotional post. However, on an audit objection raised, the same was withdrawn. A writ petition was filed which was allowed by the Single Bench. However, in appeal filed by the State, the order was reversed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which is under challenge in the present appeal. In fact, there was no error in fixation of pay of the appellants as they were to be given benefits, which were being given to other employees on promotion. If not given to the appellants, it would amount to discrimination.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was apparent error in fixation of pay of the appellants on the promotional post. Prior to their transfer in Kerala University, they had already got three promotions and their salary was fixed in terms of the applicable Rules. In inter-university transfer, they were placed at the bottom of the seniority list of Assistant Grade-II, however, their pay was protected. On promotion from Assistant Grade-II to Assistant Grade-I, they will not be entitled to upgradation of their salary for the reason that they were already getting salary of even a higher post namely Senior Grade Assistant. There is no error in the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper books.

8. Writ Petition came to be filed as audit objection was raised regarding wrong refixation of the pay of the appellants. The issue involved in the appeals is regarding fixation of pay of the appellants on the promotional post in the transferee University. There is no dispute on the facts that in terms of the policy provided for inter-university transfers on reciprocal basis, an employee transferred to another University shall rank junior most in the entry grade of the category concerned. Even an example has also been given, namely, a Senior Grade Assistant or Assistant Grade-I, if transferred shall be appointed as junior-most Assistant Grade-II. The previous service is not to be counted towards seniority. The only protection given is regarding the pay drawn by such employee. Such higher pay was to be treated as personal pay. The relevant Statute No. 14A of Chapter 4 of Kerala University First Statutes applicable for inter-university transfer is extracted below:

“14A. Posting of employees on transfer from other Universities: The Syndicate may, on request from the employees concerned, sanction, posting of employees on transfer from other Universities in the State subject to the following conditions:

(1-2)x x x x x x x x x

(3) A person transferred from another University shall take his rank below the junior-most in the entry grade of the category concerned. (eg. A Senior Grade Assistant or Assistant Grade I if transferred shall be appointed as Junior most Assistant Grade II).

(4-5) x x x x x x x x x

(6) The person transferred shall be entitled to protection from drop of emoluments. His pay on such appointment shall be fixed at the minimum of the scale of pay he was drawing in the parent University, is less than minimum. In case he was drawing under the parent University pay above the minimum and equal to a stage in the scale of pay of the post in this University service, his pay will be fixed at that stage and if the pay he was drawing under his parent University is not a stage in the scale of pay of the post in this University service, it will be fixed at the next lower stage, the difference being treated as personal pay to be absorbed in future increases of pay.” (emphasis supplied)

9. The issue arose when the transferred employees were promoted in the transferee University. Their pay was fixed in terms of the normal rule granting higher pay on promotion. Audit objection was raised regarding wrong fixation of pay of the appellants. In the case in hand undisputed fact is that the appellants had already got three promotions before they got themselves transferred to Kerala University. The salary drawn by them of the higher post was protected. It was more than what was due to Assistant Grade-I, the post on which they were promoted even after being placed as Assistant Grade-II at the bottom of the seniority. Any promotion of a transferred employee from Assistant Grade-II to Assistant Grade-I will not entitle her of any benefit of higher scale or even increment, which is applicable to the employees normally promoted for the reason that these special class of employees were already drawing salary of the higher post which in terms of the policy for inter-university transfer was protected, though they were placed at the bottom of the seniority at the entry level.

10. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no bar under Rule 28A of the Kerala Service Rules, 1959 for grant of such benefit is merely to be noticed and rejected as the entire scheme has to be read in totality. Grant of promotional benefits to the category of persons to which the appellants belong would mean granting them double benefit. Firstly, they already got in the University they were working when they were promoted as Assistant Grade-I and secondly when they were promoted on the same post in transferee University.

11. We do not find any error in the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

12. At the time of the hearing, it was submitted that all the appellants who were given the benefits have retired from service and recoveries were sought to be made from them though they were not at fault in grant of those benefits at the time of promotion. Considering the aforesaid fact and keeping in view the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washter) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334, we direct that no recovery of the amount already paid to them be effected. However, their pension can be refixed considering the emoluments to which the appellants were entitled at the time of their retirement in accordance with the rules.

13. The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.

By sclaw

Related Post

Service

The main issue is whether the eligibility criteria requiring AICTE approval for diplomas is valid, given the Supreme Court’s previous ruling that universities do not need AICTE approval for technical courses —The petitioners argued that the eligibility criteria were inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling and that they were unfairly excluded from the recruitment process —The respondents contended that the recruitment process was conducted according to the existing rules and that the petitioners were bound by the doctrine of acquiescence —The Supreme Court directed the Bihar Technical Service Commission to prepare a fresh select list of meritorious candidates, considering the previous High Court order and the AICTE’s stance —The Court found that changing the eligibility criteria after the selection process was completed was impermissible and that the petitioners had a legitimate right to be considered — The appeals were disposed of with directions to prepare a revised select list within three months, ensuring that eligible candidates are considered fairly.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Seniority in government service should be determined as per the service rules, and the date of initial appointment should be the basis for determining seniority, unless the rules provide otherwise.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw
Corruption Service

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1) and 13(1)(d) — The respondent, an Income Tax officer, was denied promotion due to pending criminal charges and a sealed cover procedure was adopted — Whether the mere grant of prosecution sanction constitutes pending criminal charges, justifying the sealed cover procedure — Petitioner argue that the prosecution sanction implies pending criminal charges, warranting the sealed cover procedure — Respondent states that no criminal charges were pending at the time of the DPC meeting, making the sealed cover procedure unjustified —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, rejecting the sealed cover procedure as the charge sheet was filed after the DPC meeting —The prosecution for criminal charges is considered pending only after a charge sheet is issued — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was found fit for promotion.

Sep 29, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw