LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employees who transfer between universities are entitled to a second pay upgrade upon promotion in the new university, despite having their previous higher pay protected.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Smt. Sasikala Devi. P vs. The State of Kerala & Anr.
Judgment Date: 28 April 2023
Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 447
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can an employee who has transferred to a new university claim a second promotion benefit when they are promoted to the same position they previously held, merely because they were placed at the bottom of the seniority list upon transfer? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a service law matter concerning inter-university transfers. The core issue was whether employees who had already received promotions in their previous university were entitled to a second pay upgrade upon promotion in the new university, despite having their previous higher pay protected.
The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal. The judgment was authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Case Background
The appellant, Smt. Sasikala Devi, was initially appointed as Assistant Grade-II at the University of Calicut on 04 May 1988. She was promoted to Assistant Grade-I on 21 December 1989. Subsequently, she was transferred to M.G. University on 04 February 1992 under inter-university transfer guidelines. She received further promotions as Senior Grade Assistant on 26 February 1993 and as Selection Grade Assistant on 03 March 1999.
On 04 November 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. Her name was included in the list of eligible Assistant Grade-II employees for promotion to Assistant Grade-I on 29 September 2001. She was promoted to Assistant Grade-I on 22 May 2002, and her pay was initially fixed on the promotional post. However, this pay fixation was later withdrawn following an audit objection.
The appellant then filed a writ petition, which was initially allowed by a Single Bench of the High Court. However, on appeal, the Division Bench reversed the Single Bench’s decision, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court. The core contention of the appellant was that she was entitled to the same benefits as other employees upon promotion and that denying her these benefits would amount to discrimination.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 04 May 1988 | Appellant appointed as Assistant Grade-II at the University of Calicut. |
| 21 December 1989 | Appellant promoted to Assistant Grade-I. |
| 04 February 1992 | Appellant transferred to M.G. University. |
| 26 February 1993 | Appellant promoted as Senior Grade Assistant. |
| 03 March 1999 | Appellant promoted as Selection Grade Assistant. |
| 04 November 1999 | Appellant applied for inter-university transfer to Kerala University. |
| 29 September 2001 | Appellant’s name included in the list of eligible Assistant Grade-II for promotion. |
| 22 May 2002 | Appellant promoted to Assistant Grade-I at Kerala University, pay fixed, and then withdrawn. |
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of Statute 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:
(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).
(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.”
This statute stipulates that employees transferring to another university will be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the entry grade of their category. For example, a Senior Grade Assistant or Assistant Grade-I, upon transfer, will be placed as the junior-most Assistant Grade-II. Importantly, the statute provides for pay protection, ensuring that the transferred employee’s salary is not reduced.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that she was entitled to the same benefits as other employees upon promotion in the Kerala University.
- She contended that denying her the benefits of higher pay upon promotion to Assistant Grade-I in Kerala University, despite being placed at the bottom of the seniority list, would amount to discrimination.
- The appellant submitted that there was no bar under Rule 28A of the Kerala Service Rules, 1959 for grant of such benefit.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents argued that there was an error in the initial fixation of the appellant’s pay on the promotional post.
- They submitted that the appellant had already received three promotions before her transfer to Kerala University and her higher salary was protected upon transfer.
- The respondents contended that the appellant was not entitled to an additional pay upgrade upon promotion to Assistant Grade-I in Kerala University because she was already drawing a salary equivalent to a higher post.
- The respondents argued that granting the appellant a second pay upgrade would amount to granting her a double benefit.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to Promotional Benefits |
✓ Entitled to same benefits as other employees on promotion. ✓ Denial of benefits is discriminatory. ✓ No bar under Rule 28A of Kerala Service Rules. |
✓ Error in initial pay fixation on promotion. ✓ Already received three promotions before transfer. ✓ Salary was protected upon transfer. ✓ Not entitled to additional pay upgrade due to already drawing higher salary. ✓ Granting additional benefit would be a double benefit. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:
- Whether the appellants were entitled to a higher pay scale upon promotion in the transferee University, despite having their pay protected during the inter-university transfer.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether the appellants were entitled to a higher pay scale upon promotion in the transferee University, despite having their pay protected during the inter-university transfer. | The Court held that the appellants were not entitled to a higher pay scale upon promotion in the transferee University. The court reasoned that the appellants had already received promotions in their previous university and were drawing a higher salary, which was protected upon transfer. Granting them a second pay upgrade would amount to double benefit. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Statute:
- Statute 14A of Chapter 4 of the Kerala University First Statutes: This statute governs inter-university transfers and specifies that a transferred employee will be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the entry grade, with pay protection.
- Rule 28A of the Kerala Service Rules, 1959: The appellant argued that there was no bar under this rule for grant of promotional benefits.
Case:
- State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washter) & Ors. [CITATION: (2015) 4 SCC 334]: This case was cited regarding the recovery of amounts already paid to the appellants.
| Authority | How the Court Considered It |
|---|---|
| Statute 14A of Chapter 4 of the Kerala University First Statutes | 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 | The Court rejected the argument based on this rule, stating that the entire scheme has to be read in totality. |
| State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washter) & Ors. [CITATION: (2015) 4 SCC 334] | 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 It |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that she was entitled to the same benefits as other employees upon promotion. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the appellant was already drawing a higher salary which was protected upon transfer, and granting a second benefit would amount to double benefit. |
| Appellant’s submission that denial of benefits is discriminatory. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the different treatment was due to the specific policy for inter-university transfers. |
| Appellant’s submission that there was no bar under Rule 28A of the Kerala Service Rules, 1959 for grant of such benefit. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the entire scheme has to be read in totality. |
| Respondents’ submission that there was an error in the initial fixation of the appellant’s pay on the promotional post. | The Court accepted this submission, stating that the initial pay fixation was not in accordance with the policy for inter-university transfers. |
| Respondents’ submission that the appellant had already received three promotions before her transfer. | The Court accepted this submission as a factual basis for denying additional benefits. |
| Respondents’ submission that the appellant was not entitled to an additional pay upgrade as her salary was already protected. | The Court accepted this submission, stating that granting additional benefits would be a double benefit. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Statute 14A of Chapter 4 of the Kerala University First Statutes: 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: The Court rejected the argument based on this rule, stating that the entire scheme has to be read in totality.
- State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washter) & Ors. [CITATION: (2015) 4 SCC 334]: The Court used this case to direct 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 principle that employees who transfer between universities should not receive double benefits. The court emphasized that the policy for inter-university transfers, as laid down in Statute 14A of Chapter 4 of the Kerala University First Statutes, clearly states that while pay is protected, seniority is reset to the bottom of the entry-level grade. Therefore, any promotion in the transferee university should not result in a further pay upgrade if the employee is already drawing a salary equivalent to or higher than the promotional post.
The Court also considered the fact that the appellants had already received multiple promotions in their previous universities. Granting them additional pay benefits upon promotion in the transferee university would amount to giving them a double benefit, which was not the intent of the transfer policy.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Prevention of double benefit | 40% |
| Adherence to inter-university transfer policy | 30% |
| Factual consideration of prior promotions | 20% |
| Rejection of discriminatory claims | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (consideration of factual aspects) | 60% |
| Law (consideration of legal aspects) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
The court considered the argument that the appellants were entitled to the same benefits as other employees upon promotion. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that the appellants had already received promotions in their previous universities and were drawing a salary equivalent to a higher post. The court stated that granting them a second pay upgrade would amount to granting them double benefits.
The court also considered the argument that denying the appellants the benefits of higher pay upon promotion would amount to discrimination. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the different treatment was due to the specific policy for inter-university transfers.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning is based on the principle that the inter-university transfer policy is designed to protect the pay of employees who transfer, not to give them additional benefits. The court’s decision ensures that the policy is applied consistently and that employees do not receive double benefits.
The court quoted: “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 stated: “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: “We do not find any error in the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.”
Key Takeaways
- Employees who transfer between universities are not entitled to a second pay upgrade upon promotion in the new university if their previous higher pay is protected.
- The inter-university transfer policy aims to protect the pay of transferred employees, not to provide them with additional benefits.
- Promotional benefits in the transferee university will not result in additional pay upgrades if the employee is already drawing a salary equivalent to or higher than the promotional post.
- The Supreme Court directed that no recovery of the amount already paid to the appellants be effected.
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 ratio decidendi of this case is that employees who transfer between universities are not entitled to a second pay upgrade upon promotion in the new university if their previous higher pay is protected. This decision clarifies the interpretation of inter-university transfer policies and ensures that employees do not receive double benefits.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, ruling that employees who transfer between universities are not entitled to a second pay upgrade upon promotion in the new university if their previous higher pay is protected. The court clarified that the inter-university transfer policy aims to protect the pay of transferred employees, not to provide them with additional benefits. The court also directed that no recovery of the amount already paid to the appellants be effected.