Holding

The appellant’s absorption and promotion in the Food and Civil Supplies Department are valid despite the initial erroneous higher deputation, as reverting him would be unjust.

Summary

The appellant, a revenue department clerk, was deputed to the Food and Civil Supplies Department in a post higher than his parent‑department rank and remained there for over three decades. When the department sought to repatriate him, he applied to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which ordered his absorption in the Food Department, placing him above a senior colleague and promoting him to Assistant Director. The respondent argued that the deputation to a higher post violated service rules, which require deputation to an equivalent post. The Supreme Court held that although the initial deputation was erroneous, the appellant had performed his duties satisfactorily for a long period, and it would be unjust to revert him to his former rank; therefore the tribunal's interference was unwarranted. Consequently, the order of absorption and promotion was upheld and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a deputed employee who was initially placed in a post higher than his parent‑department rank can be absorbed in the deputing department despite the breach of service rules.
Whether the Administrative Tribunal was justified in setting aside the department's order of absorption and promotion.

Subjects

service lawdeputationabsorptionpromotionseniorityadministrative tribunalKarnatakapublic servicedepartmental discretion

Judgment

A T. SHANTHARAM
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JANUARY 16, 1995

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.)

Service law--Continued service of deputationist in the new depart-
ment-Order of absorption and promotion-Held valid. ...
The appellant was appointed in the Revenue Department of the State
·c of Karnataka as second division clerk in Mangalore on October 8, 1963
and sent on deputation to Food and Civil Supplies Department as Assis-
tant Civil Supplies Inspector on December 26, 1967. The appellant was
promoted as Second Grade Civil Supplies Inspector on September 11,
1968, a post equivalent to Sheristedar.
D
The 5th respondent was appointed as Second Division Clerk on
January 22, 1965 in the Food Wing of the Revenue Department and was
regularised as Second Division Clerk on September 30, 1971. He was
promoted as Sheristedar on June 17, 1982. He was also promoted as
Assistant Director.
E
When the appellant was sought to be repatriated from the Food
Wing he filed an application befo~ the Administrative Tribunal in 1986
which directed absorption of the appellant in the Food Department by
order dated January 28, 1988. The appellant was absorbed in the l<'ood
Department and was placed above the 5th respondent and promoted as
F -r
Assistant Director on January 1, 1980.

In this appeal, the respondent contended that the transfer and
deputation of the appellant in the Food Wing on a post higher than the
., one held in the parent department was impermissible .
G
Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : Initially the appellant was mistakenly deputed to a higher ,,._
post in the Food and Civil Supplies Department but since the appellant
has discharged his duties and responsibilities to the satisfaction of all
H concerned, it would be unjust to send him back 'to hold the post in the
274
T.SHANTHARAMv. STATE 275

present department which he is entitled to hold. The order of absorption A
and promotion given to the appellant by the tribunal is upheld. (276-E-F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 922 of
1955.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.7.94 of the Karnataka Ad- B .
ministrative Tribunal, in A.No. 1954 of 1990.

K. Madhava Reddy, G.K. Narasimha, K. V. Vijayakumar and Girish
Ananthamurthy for the Appellant.

Ram Jois and S.N. Bhat for the Respondent. c
M. Veerappa and K.H. Nobin Singh for the State of Karnataka.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. D

The facts are telling that the appellant was appointed in the Revenue
Department as Second Division Clerk in Mangalore on October 8, 1963.
He was sent on deputation to the Food and Civil Supplies Department
which was then part of Revenue Department as Assistant Civil Supplies E
Inspector on December 26, 1967 and was promoted as Second Grade Civil
Supplies Inspector on September 11, 1968 which is stated to be equivalent
to Sheristedar. The 5th respondent Mr. R.K. Vasudev was appointed as a
Second Division Clerk on January 22, 1965 in Food Wing of'the Revenue
Department. Thereafter he was regularised as second Division Clerk on
September 30, 1971 and was promoted as a Sheristedar on June 17, 1982. F
From these facts, it is clear that at all levels of appointments and promo-
tions, the appellant was always senior to 5th respondent. But one fact that
remain on record is that the appellant continued to be on deputation in
the Food Wing of Revenue Department. When he was sought to be
repatriated, the appellant filed Application No. 6432/86 before the Ad- G
ministrative Tribunal, Bangalore. The Tribunal by its order dated January
-' 28, 1988 directed absorption of the appellant in the Food Department as
indicated in the order which reads thus : -

"Since the applicant is working in the Food and Civil Supplies
Department since 1966 (about 32 years and he has not been given H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1995) 1 S.C.R.

A any proforma promotion in the Revenue Department and there
are no valid ground to reject his request for absorption, we are of
the considered opinion that the Applicant is entitled for a direction
to the respondents to absorb him in the Department of Food and
Civil Supplies in the post now held by him. It is ordered accordingly
after quashing Annexure A."
B
Subsequent thereto it would appear that the appellant was absorbed and
· he was placed above the 5th respondent and also promoted on January 1,
1980 as a Assistant Director. It would also appear from the record that the
5th respondent also promoted as Assistant Director. The only question is
C of inter se seniority between the appellant and the 5th respondent. Shri
Rama Joi~, learned senior counsel for the respondent contended that the
Rules prescribed that on the deputation the post should be the post
eq~valent to which he was holding in the parent department and the
appellant cannot be transferred and deputed in the Food Wing on higher
post than the post hold in the parent department. Though there is force in
D the contention as per the Rules but meat of the matter is that the appellant
uninterruptedly worked in the Food department till date of the order by
the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, though initially he might have
mistakenly been deputed to hold higher post in the Food and Civil Supplies
Department, since the appellant had obviously discharged his duties and
E higher responsibilities to the satisfaction of all concerned, at this distance
of time, it is highly unjust to send him back to hold the post in the present
department which he was entitled to hold and the Tribunal is not right to
interfere with action of the department in its absorption of the appellant
as per its own earlier order. The direction given by the Tribunal at the
instance of 5th respondent in the impugned order dated July 10, 1994 is
F accordingly set aside and the order issued in the earlier proceedings stands
confirmed. In consequence the order of absorption and the promotion
given to the appellant stand upheld. The appeal is allowed. No costs.

A.G. Appeal allowed.

.,.......

{