LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employees transferred between universities are entitled to a second pay upgrade upon promotion in the new university, despite having their previous pay protected.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Smt. Sasikala Devi vs. The State of Kerala & Anr.
Judgment Date: 28 April 2023
Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 8716 of 2012
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can an employee who transfers between universities claim a second promotion benefit in the new university, when their previous pay is already protected? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in a case involving inter-university transfers in Kerala. The court clarified that employees who transfer to a new university and are placed at the bottom of the seniority list in an entry-level position are not entitled to a second pay upgrade upon promotion in the new university, especially if their previous pay is protected. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The appellant, Smt. Sasikala Devi, was initially appointed as Assistant Grade-II at the University of Calicut on May 4, 1988. She was promoted to Assistant Grade-I on December 21, 1989. Subsequently, she was transferred to M.G. University on February 4, 1992, following inter-university transfer guidelines. She received further promotions to Senior Grade Assistant on February 26, 1993, and Selection Grade Assistant on March 3, 1999.
On November 4, 1999, the appellant applied for an inter-university transfer to Kerala University. As per the policy, she was placed as the junior-most Assistant in the entry cadre of Assistant Grade-II, the position she originally held in 1988. On September 29, 2001, her name was included in the list of eligible Assistant Grade-II for promotion to Assistant Grade-I. She was promoted to Assistant Grade-I on May 22, 2002, and her pay was fixed accordingly. However, an audit objection led to the withdrawal of this pay fixation. This led to the filing of a writ petition, which was initially allowed by a single bench of the High Court. However, this decision was reversed by the Division Bench, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 4, 1988 | Appellant appointed as Assistant Grade-II at the University of Calicut. |
| December 21, 1989 | Appellant promoted to Assistant Grade-I. |
| February 4, 1992 | Appellant transferred to M.G. University. |
| February 26, 1993 | Appellant promoted to Senior Grade Assistant. |
| March 3, 1999 | Appellant promoted to Selection Grade Assistant. |
| November 4, 1999 | Appellant applied for inter-university transfer to Kerala University. |
| September 29, 2001 | Appellant’s name included in the list of eligible Assistant Grade-II for promotion. |
| May 22, 2002 | Appellant promoted to Assistant Grade-I at Kerala University; pay fixed. |
| Later | Audit objection raised; pay fixation withdrawn. |
| February 20, 2008 | Single bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition. |
| Later | Division Bench of the High Court reversed the single bench order. |
| April 28, 2023 | Supreme Court delivered its judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant initially filed a writ petition challenging the withdrawal of her pay fixation after her promotion to Assistant Grade-I at Kerala University. A single bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition, ruling in favor of the appellant. However, the State of Kerala appealed this decision, and the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the single bench’s judgment. This reversal led the appellant to file a civil appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to Statute No. 14A of Chapter 4 of the Kerala University First Statutes, which governs inter-university transfers. The relevant portion of the statute is as follows:
“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.”
The statute clearly states that a transferred employee will be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the entry grade of the new university, and their previous pay will be protected. However, it does not provide for additional pay upgrades upon promotion in the transferee university if they are already drawing a higher salary.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that there was no error in the initial pay fixation upon promotion to Assistant Grade-I in Kerala University.
- The appellant contended that she was entitled to the same benefits as other employees on promotion and that denying her these benefits would amount to discrimination.
- The appellant further argued that Rule 28A of the Kerala Service Rules, 1959, did not bar the grant of such benefits.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondents argued that there was an error in the pay fixation of the appellant on the promotional post.
- The respondents submitted that the appellant had already received three promotions before transferring to Kerala University and that her higher salary was protected.
- The respondents contended that since the appellant was already drawing a salary equivalent to or higher than that of Assistant Grade-I, she was not entitled to an additional pay upgrade upon promotion to the same post in the transferee university.
- The respondents argued that granting the appellant additional benefits would amount to double benefit.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to Promotion Benefits |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the appellants were entitled to a pay upgrade upon promotion in the transferee university, despite having their previous pay protected and being placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the entry grade.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the appellants were entitled to a pay upgrade upon promotion in the transferee university, despite having their previous pay protected and being placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the entry grade. | The Court held that the appellants were not entitled to a pay upgrade. The Court reasoned that the policy for inter-university transfers clearly states that transferred employees are placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the entry grade, with their previous pay protected. Granting additional benefits would amount to double benefit, as they were already drawing a salary of a higher post. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following:
Statute:
- Statute No. 14A of Chapter 4 of the Kerala University First Statutes: This statute outlines the rules for inter-university transfers, specifying that transferred employees are placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the entry grade and that their previous pay is protected.
- Rule 28A of the Kerala Service Rules, 1959: The appellant argued that this rule did not bar the grant of promotional benefits. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the entire scheme must be read in totality.
Case Law:
- State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washter) & Ors. [2015] 4 SCC 334: The Supreme Court referred to this judgment while directing that no recovery of the amount already paid to the appellants be effected, considering that they were not at fault in the grant of those benefits.
| Authority | Type | How Considered by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Statute No. 14A of Chapter 4 of the Kerala University First Statutes | Statute | The Court relied on this statute to determine the rules for inter-university transfers and pay protection. |
| Rule 28A of the Kerala Service Rules, 1959 | Rule | The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that this rule supported their claim, stating that the entire scheme must be read in totality. |
| State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washter) & Ors. [2015] 4 SCC 334 Supreme Court of India | Case Law | The Court used this case to direct that no recovery of the amount already paid to the appellants be effected. |
Judgment
| Submission | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s claim for pay upgrade upon promotion. | Rejected. The Court held that the appellant was not entitled to a second pay upgrade as her previous pay was protected and the inter-university transfer policy placed her at the bottom of the seniority list in the entry grade. |
| Appellant’s reliance on Rule 28A of the Kerala Service Rules. | Rejected. The Court stated that the entire scheme of inter-university transfers must be read in totality, and Rule 28A cannot be interpreted in isolation. |
| Respondent’s argument that granting additional benefits would be double benefit. | Accepted. The Court agreed that granting additional benefits would amount to double benefit, as the appellants were already drawing a salary of a higher post. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- The Court relied on Statute No. 14A of Chapter 4 of the Kerala University First Statutes to determine the rules for inter-university transfers and pay protection.
- The Court rejected the appellant’s argument based on Rule 28A of the Kerala Service Rules, 1959, stating that the entire scheme must be read in totality.
- The Court referred to State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washter) & Ors. [2015] 4 SCC 334 while directing that no recovery of the amount already paid to the appellants be effected.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the policy governing inter-university transfers, which aims to protect the pay of transferred employees while placing them at the bottom of the seniority list in the entry grade. The Court emphasized that granting additional promotional benefits to such employees would amount to double benefit, as they were already drawing a salary of a higher post. The Court also considered the fact that the appellants were not at fault in the initial grant of those benefits, leading to the direction that no recovery of the amount already paid be effected.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Policy of inter-university transfers | 40% |
| Prevention of double benefit | 30% |
| No fault of the appellants in initial grant of benefits | 30% |
| Aspect | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision, stating that there was no error in denying the appellants a second pay upgrade upon promotion in the transferee university. The Court emphasized that the inter-university transfer policy is designed to protect the pay of transferred employees while ensuring they are placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the entry grade. Granting additional benefits would amount to double benefit, which is not the intention of the policy.
The Court also stated that, “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.”
The Court further clarified that, “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.”
The Court also noted that, “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.”
The Court, however, directed that no recovery of the amount already paid to the appellants be effected, considering that they were not at fault in the initial grant of those benefits. 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.
Key Takeaways
- Employees who transfer between universities are placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the entry-level position in the new university.
- The previous pay of transferred employees is protected, but they are not entitled to a second pay upgrade upon promotion in the new university if they are already drawing a higher salary.
- Granting additional promotional benefits in such cases would amount to double benefit, which is not the intention of the inter-university transfer policy.
- No recovery of the amount already paid to the appellants will be made, but their pension will be refixed as per the rules.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that no recovery of the amount already paid to the appellants 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.
Development of Law
The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies that employees who transfer between universities are not entitled to a second pay upgrade upon promotion in the new university if their previous pay is protected. This decision reinforces the principle that inter-university transfers are intended to protect pay and seniority but not to provide additional promotional benefits. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the inter-university transfer policy is designed to protect the pay of transferred employees while ensuring they are placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the entry grade, and granting additional benefits would be a double benefit. This clarifies the position of law with respect to inter-university transfers and pay protection.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Smt. Sasikala Devi vs. The State of Kerala & Anr. clarifies the rules regarding pay protection and promotional benefits for employees who transfer between universities. The Court held that such employees are not entitled to a second pay upgrade upon promotion in the new university if their previous pay is protected. This decision ensures that the inter-university transfer policy is implemented as intended, preventing double benefits for transferred employees. The Court also provided relief by directing that no recovery of the amount already paid to the appellants be made, while allowing for the refixation of their pension as per the rules.