Supreme Court of India Judgements

46468 Judgements hosted as on 12/05/2024 - 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

Constitution Service

Judicial Services – Judicial Appointment – Minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test for appointment to the District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat – The petitioners argue that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce is arbitrary and unreasonable and violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – The respondents argue that the selection process is legally valid and in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations – The court concludes that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce is permissible and is not in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others – The court also finds that the impugned selection process in the State of Bihar and Gujarat is legally valid and is upheld – The court further concludes that the non-consultation with the Public Service Commission would not render the Gujarat Rules, 2005 (as amended in 2011) void – The writ petitions are dismissed without any order on cost.

May 11, 2024 sclaw
Service

Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Sections 70(2) and 95(1) – Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak(Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005 – Rule 7A – Appointment – Denial of – Appellant was denied appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III despite passing the selection exam and the High Court’s ruling in her favor – The main issue was the State Government’s refusal to appoint the appellant based on amended rules, which were applied retrospectively – The appellant argued that the denial of appointment was illegal and arbitrary, and that she fulfilled all qualifications for the post – The State contended that the appellant was not eligible for appointment due to the retrospective application of Rule 7-A – The Supreme Court directed the appellant’s appointment to an equivalent post, without back wages but with compensation for the arbitrary denial of her rightful claim – The Court found the State’s actions to be mala fide and arbitrary, as they denied the appellant’s legitimate claim despite multiple court orders – Referencing the case of Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, the Court emphasized the duty to provide restitution for arbitrary actions – The Court allowed the appeals, ordered the appellant’s appointment, and granted compensation, highlighting the need for restitutive relief.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Service

Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992 – Rule 6(h) – House Rent Allowance (HRA) – The appellant, a retired Inspector(Telecom) in Jammu and Kashmir Police, was charged with unauthorized House Rent Allowance (HRA) drawals and asked to repay Rs.3,96,814/-.- The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to HRA while sharing government accommodation allotted to his retired father – The appellant argued that the quarter was allotted to his father, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, and he only occasionally shared it, thus he should not be charged HRA – The State contended that the appellant was not entitled to HRA as per Rule 6(h)(i) and (ii) because he shared rent-free accommodation allotted to his father – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision and the recovery notice – The Court found no application for Rule 6(h)(iv) in the appellant’s case and held that clauses 6(h)(i) and (ii) covered the controversy – The Court reasoned that since the appellant shared accommodation with a retired government servant, he was not entitled to claim HRA – The appeal is dismissed as devoid of force, and the recovery notice was justified in the eyes of the law

May 5, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1) – Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 1998 – Section 4 – Gang Rape – The victim’s testimony, along with her mother and aunt’s statements, was consistent with the initial complaint and corroborated by medical evidence – The defense argued that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – Whether the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were not significant and did not affect the overall credibility of the evidence – The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The court rejected the defense’s argument that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant and rejected the defence’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Dismissal of Civil Suit – Condonation of delay – Standing to file an application – The court clarified that only parties to a suit or those who have accrued a right in the lis can file an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit. A stranger to the proceedings cannot file such an application.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 – Section 3(1)(b) – State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Section 29 – The appeals arise from a High Court judgment regarding the recovery of time-barred debts under the Act, 1979, and the Act, 1951 – The main issue is whether a debt time-barred under the Limitation Act can be recovered using the aforementioned Acts – The appellants argued that time-barred debts cannot be recovered under the Recovery of Dues Act, citing the precedent set in V.R. Kalliyanikutty – The respondents argued that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act allow for time-barred debt recovery, as they only bar the remedy, not the right – The court examined whether the Recovery of Dues Act creates a new right for creditors and allows for time-barred debt recovery – The court discussed the distinction between a debt and the right of action for its recovery, noting that the statute of limitation bars the latter but not the former – The court concluded that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act provide an alternative mechanism for recovering debts, even if they are time-barred – Matter needs to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate three-judge bench.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Policy Claim – The appellants, family of the deceased, filed a complaint after the LIC repudiated their claim on a policy following the policyholder’s accidental death – The main issue was whether there was a concluded contract between the deceased and LIC at the time of his death, which would obligate LIC to pay the insurance benefits – The appellants argued that LIC had accepted the first premium and issued a receipt, thereby assuming risk and concluding the contract before the policyholder’s death – LIC contended that the policy was not communicated to the deceased and was blocked due to his demise, implying no concluded contract existed – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order, restored the District Forum’s order in favor of the appellants, and directed LIC to pay the insurance benefits as per the policy terms – The Court found clear presumption of acceptance of the policy by LIC, as the first premium receipt indicated the corporation was on risk from the receipt date – The Court relied on precedents that establish the principles of insurance contracts and the obligations of good faith expected from insurers – The Supreme Court concluded that LIC had indeed entered into a contract with the policyholder before his death, and thus, was liable to pay the insurance benefits to the appellants.

May 12, 2024 sclaw