Service Matter - Higher post salary when entitled for - whether the appellant is entitled to salary of high post where in he had worked for few years as in charge with specific terms - Apex court held that The order dated 28th February, 2001, by which the appellant was allowed to discharge duties in the post of Assistant Manager had made it clear that the appellant would not be entitled to claim any benefit therefrom including higher salary and further that he would continue to draw his salary in the post of Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. If the
above was an express term of the order allowing him to discharge duties in the higher post, it is difficult to see as to how the said condition can be overlooked or ignored and dismissed the appeal =
in the present
appeal is the entitlement of the appellant – A. Francis to
salary in the higher post of Assistant Manager wherein he had worked from
28th February, 2001 till 31st May, 2005.=
The order dated 28th February, 2001, by which the appellant was
allowed to discharge duties in the post of Assistant Manager had made it
clear that the appellant would not be entitled to claim any benefit
therefrom including higher salary and further that he would continue to
draw his salary in the post of Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. If the
above was an express term of the order allowing him to discharge duties in
the higher post, it is difficult to see as to how the said condition can be
overlooked or ignored. The decision of this Court in Secretary-cum-Chief
Engineer, Chandigarh (supra) was rendered in a situation where the
incumbent was promoted on ad hoc basis to the higher post. The aforesaid
decision is also distinguishable inasmuch as there was no specific
condition in the promotion order which debarred the incumbent from the
salary of the higher post. Such a condition was incorporated in an
undertaking taken from the employee which was held by this Court to be
contrary to public policy.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
Consequently, the same is dismissed and the order dated 29th September,
2011 passed in Writ Appeal No.1181 of 2010 by the High Court of Judicature
at Madras is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7692 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5396 OF 2013)
A. FRANCIS ... APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
THE MANAGEMENT OF METROPOLITAN ... RESPONDENT (S)
TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.,
TAMIL NADU
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. In view of the limited notice issued by this Court on 24th
January, 2013, the only issue that has to be decided in the present
appeal is the entitlement of the appellant – A. Francis to
salary in the higher post of Assistant Manager wherein he had worked from
28th February, 2001 till 31st May, 2005.
4. The appellant was initially appointed as a clerk in the Tamil Nadu
State Transport Department whereafter he was transferred and absorbed in
the newly formed Pallavan Transport Corporation, which Corporation
subsequently came to be known as the Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Ltd., Chennai. He was promoted to the post of ‘Section Officer’ in the
year 1991. As a large number of posts of Assistant Manager were lying
vacant in the Corporation, by Order dated 28th February, 2001 the appellant
was posted as Assistant Manager In-charge (Public Relations). The
aforesaid order made it clear that the same will not confer any
preferential right for regular promotion and that the appellant will
continue to draw his grade pay in his present cadre i.e. Assistant Labour
Welfare Officer. Well after he had retired from service with effect from
31st May, 2005, the appellant moved a Writ Petition before the High Court
of Judicature at Madras claiming, inter alia, the relief of higher salary
of the post of Assistant Manager. The aforesaid Writ Petition was allowed
by order dated 4th December, 2009. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed a
Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court. The direction of the learned
Single Judge for payment of salary of the higher post for the period in
question having been reversed in the Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant
is before this Court.
5. We have heard Ms. C.K. Sucharita, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned AAG, appearing for the
respondent. We have carefully considered the orders passed by the learned
Single Judge as well as the appellate Bench of the High Court.
6. Ms. C.K. Sucharita, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently
contended that having discharged duties in the post of Assistant Manager,
the appellant is entitled to the pay and emoluments of that office which
had been granted to him by the learned Single Judge. Relying on a decision
of this Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh vs. Hari Om
Sharma & Ors.[1], learned counsel has contended that the Division Bench of
the High Court was plainly wrong in reversing the direction of the learned
Single Judge. In fact, learned counsel would urge that the ratio of the
decision of this Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh (supra)
is a complete answer to the issues arising in the present proceeding.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned AAG, appearing for
the respondent has placed before the Court the terms of the order dated
28th February 2001 by which the appellant was allowed to discharge duties
in the post of Assistant Manager. It is pointed out that there was a
specific condition stipulated in the order dated 28th February, 2001 with
regard to salary and emoluments, namely, that the appellant would continue
to draw the salary in the lower cadre i.e. Assistant Labour Welfare
Officer. The claim made with regard to salary of the higher post is,
therefore, not tenable in law. Learned counsel has tried to distinguish
the decision of this Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh
(supra) by contending that the same must be understood in the context of
the facts of the case.
8. The order dated 28th February, 2001, by which the appellant was
allowed to discharge duties in the post of Assistant Manager had made it
clear that the appellant would not be entitled to claim any benefit
therefrom including higher salary and further that he would continue to
draw his salary in the post of Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. If the
above was an express term of the order allowing him to discharge duties in
the higher post, it is difficult to see as to how the said condition can be
overlooked or ignored. The decision of this Court in Secretary-cum-Chief
Engineer, Chandigarh (supra) was rendered in a situation where the
incumbent was promoted on ad hoc basis to the higher post. The aforesaid
decision is also distinguishable inasmuch as there was no specific
condition in the promotion order which debarred the incumbent from the
salary of the higher post. Such a condition was incorporated in an
undertaking taken from the employee which was held by this Court to be
contrary to public policy.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
Consequently, the same is dismissed and the order dated 29th September,
2011 passed in Writ Appeal No.1181 of 2010 by the High Court of Judicature
at Madras is affirmed.
…....…………………………J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
.……....………………………J.
[M. Y. EQBAL]
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 13, 2014.
-----------------------
[1] (1998) 5 SCC 87
-----------------------
6
above was an express term of the order allowing him to discharge duties in the higher post, it is difficult to see as to how the said condition can be overlooked or ignored and dismissed the appeal =
in the present
appeal is the entitlement of the appellant – A. Francis to
salary in the higher post of Assistant Manager wherein he had worked from
28th February, 2001 till 31st May, 2005.=
The order dated 28th February, 2001, by which the appellant was
allowed to discharge duties in the post of Assistant Manager had made it
clear that the appellant would not be entitled to claim any benefit
therefrom including higher salary and further that he would continue to
draw his salary in the post of Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. If the
above was an express term of the order allowing him to discharge duties in
the higher post, it is difficult to see as to how the said condition can be
overlooked or ignored. The decision of this Court in Secretary-cum-Chief
Engineer, Chandigarh (supra) was rendered in a situation where the
incumbent was promoted on ad hoc basis to the higher post. The aforesaid
decision is also distinguishable inasmuch as there was no specific
condition in the promotion order which debarred the incumbent from the
salary of the higher post. Such a condition was incorporated in an
undertaking taken from the employee which was held by this Court to be
contrary to public policy.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
Consequently, the same is dismissed and the order dated 29th September,
2011 passed in Writ Appeal No.1181 of 2010 by the High Court of Judicature
at Madras is affirmed.
2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41827
RANJAN GOGOI, M.Y. EQBAL
NON-REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7692 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5396 OF 2013)
A. FRANCIS ... APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
THE MANAGEMENT OF METROPOLITAN ... RESPONDENT (S)
TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.,
TAMIL NADU
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. In view of the limited notice issued by this Court on 24th
January, 2013, the only issue that has to be decided in the present
appeal is the entitlement of the appellant – A. Francis to
salary in the higher post of Assistant Manager wherein he had worked from
28th February, 2001 till 31st May, 2005.
4. The appellant was initially appointed as a clerk in the Tamil Nadu
State Transport Department whereafter he was transferred and absorbed in
the newly formed Pallavan Transport Corporation, which Corporation
subsequently came to be known as the Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Ltd., Chennai. He was promoted to the post of ‘Section Officer’ in the
year 1991. As a large number of posts of Assistant Manager were lying
vacant in the Corporation, by Order dated 28th February, 2001 the appellant
was posted as Assistant Manager In-charge (Public Relations). The
aforesaid order made it clear that the same will not confer any
preferential right for regular promotion and that the appellant will
continue to draw his grade pay in his present cadre i.e. Assistant Labour
Welfare Officer. Well after he had retired from service with effect from
31st May, 2005, the appellant moved a Writ Petition before the High Court
of Judicature at Madras claiming, inter alia, the relief of higher salary
of the post of Assistant Manager. The aforesaid Writ Petition was allowed
by order dated 4th December, 2009. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed a
Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court. The direction of the learned
Single Judge for payment of salary of the higher post for the period in
question having been reversed in the Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant
is before this Court.
5. We have heard Ms. C.K. Sucharita, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned AAG, appearing for the
respondent. We have carefully considered the orders passed by the learned
Single Judge as well as the appellate Bench of the High Court.
6. Ms. C.K. Sucharita, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently
contended that having discharged duties in the post of Assistant Manager,
the appellant is entitled to the pay and emoluments of that office which
had been granted to him by the learned Single Judge. Relying on a decision
of this Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh vs. Hari Om
Sharma & Ors.[1], learned counsel has contended that the Division Bench of
the High Court was plainly wrong in reversing the direction of the learned
Single Judge. In fact, learned counsel would urge that the ratio of the
decision of this Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh (supra)
is a complete answer to the issues arising in the present proceeding.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned AAG, appearing for
the respondent has placed before the Court the terms of the order dated
28th February 2001 by which the appellant was allowed to discharge duties
in the post of Assistant Manager. It is pointed out that there was a
specific condition stipulated in the order dated 28th February, 2001 with
regard to salary and emoluments, namely, that the appellant would continue
to draw the salary in the lower cadre i.e. Assistant Labour Welfare
Officer. The claim made with regard to salary of the higher post is,
therefore, not tenable in law. Learned counsel has tried to distinguish
the decision of this Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh
(supra) by contending that the same must be understood in the context of
the facts of the case.
8. The order dated 28th February, 2001, by which the appellant was
allowed to discharge duties in the post of Assistant Manager had made it
clear that the appellant would not be entitled to claim any benefit
therefrom including higher salary and further that he would continue to
draw his salary in the post of Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. If the
above was an express term of the order allowing him to discharge duties in
the higher post, it is difficult to see as to how the said condition can be
overlooked or ignored. The decision of this Court in Secretary-cum-Chief
Engineer, Chandigarh (supra) was rendered in a situation where the
incumbent was promoted on ad hoc basis to the higher post. The aforesaid
decision is also distinguishable inasmuch as there was no specific
condition in the promotion order which debarred the incumbent from the
salary of the higher post. Such a condition was incorporated in an
undertaking taken from the employee which was held by this Court to be
contrary to public policy.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
Consequently, the same is dismissed and the order dated 29th September,
2011 passed in Writ Appeal No.1181 of 2010 by the High Court of Judicature
at Madras is affirmed.
…....…………………………J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
.……....………………………J.
[M. Y. EQBAL]
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 13, 2014.
-----------------------
[1] (1998) 5 SCC 87
-----------------------
6
