Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2023 INSC 447
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Statute No. 14A of Chapter 4 of Kerala University First Statutes
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2023 INSC 447
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Statute No. 14A of Chapter 4 of Kerala University First Statutes
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeals arise out of a service dispute concerning fixation of pay after inter-university transfers within Kerala. The appellant was initially appointed as Assistant Grade-II in the University of Calicut on 04-05-1988, received a series of three promotions there and in M.G. University, and was later transferred on request to Kerala University in 1999. Kerala University’s Statute 14A mandates that transferees enter as the junior-most in the entry grade (Assistant Grade-II) while protecting their then-existing pay as “personal pay.” When the appellant was subsequently promoted to Assistant Grade-I in Kerala University on 22-05-2002, her pay was re-fixed in the usual promotional manner. Audit raised an objection, prompting the University to withdraw the revised pay. The Single Bench of the High Court allowed her challenge, but a Division Bench reversed that decision in W.A. Nos. 1904 and 1975 of 2008. The present civil appeals challenge the Division Bench judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether an employee who joins a transferee university as the junior-most Assistant Grade-II under Statute 14A is entitled to normal promotional pay benefits on subsequent promotion to Assistant Grade-I, despite already drawing a higher “protected” salary from prior promotions in the parent university.
  2. Whether Rule 28A of the Kerala Service Rules, 1959 permits such promotional benefits in the circumstances described.
  3. Whether recovery of amounts already paid on the basis of the earlier pay fixation is permissible when the employees were not at fault.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

  • Pay on promotion was correctly fixed in 2002 because, once promoted in Kerala University, they were entitled to the same benefits granted to other employees, and denial amounts to discrimination.
  • Rule 28A of the Kerala Service Rules imposes no bar on granting promotional benefits after transfer.
  • Audit objection had no legal basis; the Single Bench rightly allowed the writ petition.

Respondents' Arguments

  • The appellants had already enjoyed three promotions and were drawing a higher salary, which was protected as personal pay; therefore, further promotional increments on the same post would confer an impermissible double benefit.
  • Statute 14A expressly places transferees at the bottom of the seniority list and only protects existing pay; it does not authorise additional benefits on subsequent promotion.
  • The Division Bench correctly held the initial refixation erroneous; its decision should be upheld.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 Principle that recovery of excess payments from retired employees who were not at fault should ordinarily be avoided. Used to direct that no recovery be made from amounts already paid to the retired appellants, though their pensions may be re-fixed prospectively.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

After reviewing Statute 14A of the Kerala University First Statutes, the Court underscored two key features: (1) transferees must rank as the junior-most in the entry grade, and (2) only their then-existing pay is protected as personal pay. Because the appellants had already reached higher grades before transfer, they entered Kerala University as Assistant Grade-II while drawing salaries equivalent to a Senior Grade Assistant. When subsequently promoted to Assistant Grade-I, they were already earning more than the scale attached to that post. Granting normal promotional increments would therefore provide a “double benefit,” contrary to the scheme’s intent. The Court dismissed reliance on Rule 28A, finding that any interpretation must harmonise with Statute 14A, which expressly limits the benefits available. Consequently, the audit objection was valid, and the Division Bench rightly reversed the Single Judge.

Holding and Implications

The appeals are disposed of; the Division Bench judgment is affirmed.

Immediate Effect: The appellants are not entitled to promotional pay benefits granted in 2002; their pension is to be re-fixed based on the correct emoluments. In line with Rafiq Masih, no recovery shall be made of sums already paid. Broader Implications: The decision reinforces the principle that pay protection on inter-university transfer does not entail entitlement to fresh promotional increments where the employee already draws a higher personal pay.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    SMT. SASIKALA DEVI P. v. THE STATE OF KERALA

    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 v. Rafiq Masih (White Washter) (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.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    SMT. SASIKALA DEVI P. v. THE STATE OF KERALA
    (Apr 28, 2023)