Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIAversusK.R. THAMPI

Citation
1996 INSC 1277
Decided
4 November 1996
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Holding

The respondent is entitled only to the pay scale of Rs.2000‑3500 applicable to the Administrative Officer post, not the higher Assistant Director scale.

Summary

The appellant Union of India appealed against a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had granted the respondent, K.R. Thampi, a higher pay scale of Rs. 2200‑4000 (Assistant Director) after he was re‑allocated from a temporary veterinary post to the Geological Department as an Administrative Officer. Thampi had originally been allotted a post as Assistant Director in the SC/ST Commission but was not assigned any work and was subsequently transferred under the Deployment of Surplus Staff Rules. The respondent claimed that the salary attached to the Assistant Director post should continue despite the lack of duties. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s order was illegal because the respondent could only draw the pay scale applicable to the post to which he was actually transferred, namely Rs. 2000‑3500 for Administrative Officer. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the respondent was ordered to receive the lower scale. The Court noted that any claim for a non‑practicing allowance must be pursued separately before the Government.

Issues considered

  • Whether a government employee transferred to a different department is entitled to the higher pay scale of a previous post when he was not assigned any duties in that post.
  • Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal's order granting the higher pay scale is valid under the Deployment of Surplus Staff Rules.

Subjects

service lawtemporary appointmentpay scale fixationAdministrative OfficerAssistant DirectorDeployment of Surplus Staff RulesCentral Administrative Tribunalreallocation of staff

Judgment

                               UNION OF INDIA                                    A
                                        v.
                                  K.R. THAMPI

                              NOVEMBER 4,1996

                [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                           B
          Service Law :

           Payscale-Appointment to temporary post of Veterinary Doctor-On
     closure ofthe Project allotted to SC/ST Commission as Assistant Director-   C
     But not assigned any work-Later reallotted to the Geological department
     as Administrative Officer-Whether entitled to scale of pay higher than
     the one attached to the post on par with his earlier posting as Assistant
     Director-Held, no.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14778 of                D
     1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.96 of the Central
     Administrative Tribunal, Emakulam in Kerala in 0.A. No. 462 of 1995.

          Ms. A. Jain, Ms. Indra Sawhney and A.K. Sharma for the Appellant.      E
          Mahender Singh, P.R. Malhotra, C.N. Sree Kumar and K.M.
     Balgopal, for the Respondent.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :                       F
          Leave granted.

          This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of
     the Central Administrative Tribuna~ Emakulam, made on 4. 1.1996 in G
     OA. No.462 of 1995.
-.
           The -1dmitted position is that the respondent was appointed as a
     veterinary doctor on a temporary post in the pay-scale of Rs, 650-1200
     which was subsequently revised to Rs,2000-3500. After closure of the
     Dandakaranya Project, instead of dismissing him from service as an          H
                                       387
    388                   ' SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A Administrative Officer, they adjusted the respondent as per the Deployment
  of Surplus Staff Rules. Initially, the respondent was allotted to the Scheduled
  Caste and Scheduled Tribe Commission on their willingness to receive
  him, but later•on, he was not assi&ned any duty. On receipt of letter from
  the Commission, the respondent was allotted to the Geological Department
  as an Administrative Officer by offer dated 26.2.1987. The scale of pay
B therein also was the same as was of the Administrative officer in the
  Dandakaranya Project, viz., Rs. 2000-3500. He claimed the scale of Rs.
  700-1300 which was subsequently revised to Rs. 2200-4000. The Tribunal
  has directed grant of the aforesaid relief. It is obvious that the scale of pay
  of Rs. 2200-4000 is higher scale of Assistant Director than the
  Administrative Officer to which post the respondent was appointed. On
C deployment to Geological Department, he cannot be fitted into a higher
  cadre than in which he was actually drawing the scale of pay. His services
  were transferred to Geological Department, Dandakaranya Project.

          Learned counsel for the respondent contends that since he was given
   posting as Assistant Director in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
D Commission and he had agreed to report to join the duty, the mere fact            •·
   that he was not assigned any work, does not take away his right to the
   salary attached to that post. We find no force in this contention. Due to the
 · letter addressed by the Commission, the Government reallotted him to the
   Geological Department as Administrative Officer carrying the same scale
E of pay drawn by him in Dandakranya Project. Under these circumstances,
   the view taken by the Tribunal is clearly illegal.

          The appeal is accordingly allowed. He is entitled to the pay-scale of
    Rs. 2000-3500 in Geological Department as Administrative Officer. There
    will be no order as to costs.
F
         It would be open to the respondent to make a representation to the
    Government on his claim for non-practicing allowance; and it is for the
    Government to consider and dispose it of according to the Rules.

G G.N.                                                          Appeal allowed.


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.