Union of India Vs. K.R. Thampi
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 14778 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.14113 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.1996 of the Central Admin-istrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in Kerala in O.A.No. 462 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.14113 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.1996 of the Central Admin-istrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in Kerala in O.A.No. 462 of 1995)
Petitioner: Union of India
Respondent: K.R. Thampi
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 14778 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.14113 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.1996 of the Central Admin-istrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in Kerala in O.A.No. 462 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.14113 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.1996 of the Central Admin-istrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in Kerala in O.A.No. 462 of 1995)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & G.B.PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 04, 1996
Appearances:
Ms. A. Jain, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocates for the Appellants.
Mr. Mahender Singh, Mr. P.R. Malhotra, Mr. C.N.Sree Kumar, Mr. K.M. Balgopal, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Deployment of surplus staff rules – Held on deployment to a new deptt. as surplus staff, respondent cannot be fitted into a higher cadre than in which he was actually drawing scale of pay – Tribunal erred in its view – Appeal allowed – Respondent is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/-.
Deployment of surplus staff rules – Held on deployment to a new deptt. as surplus staff, respondent cannot be fitted into a higher cadre than in which he was actually drawing scale of pay – Tribunal erred in its view – Appeal allowed – Respondent is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/-.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, made on 4.1.1996 in OA No.462 of 1995.
3. The admitted 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 Administrative Officer, they adjusted the respondent as per the Deployment of Surplus Staff Rules. Ini-tially, the respondent was allotted to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Commission on their willingness to receive him, but later on, he was not assigned any duty. On receipt of letter from the Commission, the respondent was allotted to the Geologi-cal Department as an Administrative Officer by offer dated 26.2.1987. The scale of pay 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 direct-ed 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 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.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that since he was given posting as Assistant Director in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 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 of pay drawn by him in Dandakranya Project. Under these circum-stances, the view taken by the Tribunal is clearly illegal.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. He is entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3500/- in Geological Department as Administra-tive Officer. There will be no order as to costs.
6. It would be open to the respondent to make a representation to the Government on his claim for non-practising allowance; and it is for the Government to consider and dispose it of according to the Rules.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, made on 4.1.1996 in OA No.462 of 1995.
3. The admitted 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 Administrative Officer, they adjusted the respondent as per the Deployment of Surplus Staff Rules. Ini-tially, the respondent was allotted to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Commission on their willingness to receive him, but later on, he was not assigned any duty. On receipt of letter from the Commission, the respondent was allotted to the Geologi-cal Department as an Administrative Officer by offer dated 26.2.1987. The scale of pay 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 direct-ed 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 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.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that since he was given posting as Assistant Director in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 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 of pay drawn by him in Dandakranya Project. Under these circum-stances, the view taken by the Tribunal is clearly illegal.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. He is entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3500/- in Geological Department as Administra-tive Officer. There will be no order as to costs.
6. It would be open to the respondent to make a representation to the Government on his claim for non-practising allowance; and it is for the Government to consider and dispose it of according to the Rules.
