- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Selvaraj v. Lt. Governor Of Island, Port Blair And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, a Primary School Teacher (PST) in the Andaman & Nicobar Administration, was directed by Order No. 276 dated 28-1-1992 to “look after the duties of Secretary (Scouts)” in the Directorate of Education, Scouts Section. The order expressly stated that his pay would be “drawn against the post of Secretary (Scouts) under GFR 77,” a post carrying the higher pay scale of Rs 1640-2900. From 29-1-1992 to 19-9-1995 the appellant actually performed those duties but continued to receive his lower PST pay scale of Rs 1200-2040.
Claiming the higher salary for the period he officiated, the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which rejected his claim. He then filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court of India. The Court granted leave, confined the appeal to the limited question of entitlement to salary for the period he worked as Secretary (Scouts), and delivered the present judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant is entitled to draw the salary attached to the post of Secretary (Scouts) during the period (29-1-1992 to 19-9-1995) in which he actually performed the duties of that post.
- If so, what was the appropriate scale of pay for the post of Secretary (Scouts) for the purpose of calculating the appellant’s salary.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- He performed the full duties of Secretary (Scouts) pursuant to the administrative order and therefore should receive the corresponding salary.
- Under the principle of quantum meruit, an employee who works in a higher post is entitled to the emoluments of that post for the period of actual service.
Respondents' Arguments
- The appellant was never formally promoted; he merely “looked after” the post and therefore remained in the PST pay scale.
- The arrangement was partly at the appellant’s request to remain in Port Blair instead of being transferred to an interior island, implying no entitlement to higher pay.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined Order No. 276 dated 28-1-1992, noting that it explicitly authorised payment to the appellant “against the post of Secretary (Scouts)” while he performed the duties of that post. The Court held that:
- Although the appellant was not formally promoted, he actually worked in the higher post for the specified period.
- The salary for the Secretary (Scouts) post was indisputably in the pay scale of Rs 1640-2900.
- On the equitable principle of quantum meruit—that one who performs the duties of a higher office is entitled to its remuneration—the appellant should receive the differential salary.
- The respondent Administration’s contentions about the appellant’s preference to remain in Port Blair did not negate his legal entitlement to be paid for the higher duties performed.
Accordingly, the Tribunal erred in denying the claim, and its decision was set aside to the limited extent of salary differential.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Allowed in Part. The Supreme Court directed the respondents to pay the appellant the difference between the PST pay scale and the Secretary (Scouts) pay scale (Rs 1640-2900) for the period 29-1-1992 to 19-9-1995, within eight weeks.
Implications: The decision grants the appellant monetary relief without treating it as a promotion. It reinforces the application of quantum meruit in public employment when an employee is formally directed to perform higher responsibilities, but it sets no broader precedent beyond the facts of the case.
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 5 who are the only contesting respondents in the present case.
2. A limited notice was issued in the SLPs which has resulted into these appeals. It was to the effect “whether the petitioner is entitled to draw the salary attached to the post of Secretary (Scouts) during the time he actually worked on that post pursuant to the order at Annexure ‘E’ dated 28-1-1992 at page 32 of the Paper-Book. And if so, what was the scale of pay for the said post according to him”. When we turned to the order dated 28-1-1992 under which the appellant was called upon to look after the duties of the Secretary (Scouts) we find the following recitals as per Order No. 276, dated 28-1-1992.
“The Director of Education, A & N Islands is pleased to order the transfer to Shri Selveraj, Primary School Teacher attached to Middle School, Kanyapuram to Directorate of Education (Scouts Section) to look after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) with immediate effect. His pay will be drawn against the post of Secretary (Scouts) under GFR 77.”
3. It is not in dispute that the appellant looked after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) from the date of the order and his salary was to be drawn against the post of Secretary (Scouts) under GFR 77. Still he was not paid the said salary for the work done by him as Secretary (Scouts). It is of course true that the appellant was not regularly promoted to the said post. It is also true as stated in the counter-affidavit of Deputy Resident Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Administration that the appellant was regularly posted in the pay scale of Rs 1200-2040 and he was asked to look after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) as per the order aforesaid. It is also true that had this arrangement not been done, he would have to be transferred to the interior islands where the post of PST was available, but the appellant was keen to stay in Port Blair as averred in the said counter. However, in our view, these averments in the counter will not change the real position. Fact remains that the appellant has worked on the higher post though temporarily and in an officiating capacity pursuant to the aforesaid order and his salary was to be drawn during that time against the post of Secretary (Scouts). It is also not in dispute that the salary attached to the post of Secretary (Scouts) was in the pay scale of 1640-2900. Consequently, on the principle of quantum meruit the respondents authorities should have paid the appellant as per the emoluments available in the aforesaid higher pay scale during the time he actually worked on the said post of Secretary (Scouts) though in an officiating capacity and not as a regular promotee. This limited relief is required to be given to the appellant only on this ground.
4. The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the claim of the appellant to the aforesaid limited extent is therefore required to be set aside. The appeals are allowed to the limited extent that the respondents will be called upon to make available to the appellant the difference of salary in the time scale of 1640-2900 during the period from 29-1-1992 to 19-9 1995 during which time the appellant actually worked. It is made clear that the payment of the aforesaid difference amount of salary shall not be treated to amount to any promotion given to the appellant on the said post. It is only on the ground that he had actually worked, as such this relief is being given to him. The difference of salary as aforesaid shall be paid over to the appellant within eight weeks from today. No costs.
Alert