E. P. ROYAPPA versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 23-11-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 62 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

348 
E. P. ROYAPPA 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. 
November 23, 1973 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., D. G. PALEKAR, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, 
P. N. BHAO;ATI AND V. R. .KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Art. 3Z-Fundamental Right-Indian Administrative 
Sen'ice (Pay) Rules 1954 r. 9 sub-r. (I)-Declaration of equivalence-Mere 
violation of rule does not involve infringement of fundamental right. 
Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 16-Transfer of acting Chief Secretary to 
uon-cadre posts in the same grade as that of CVzief Secretary-Appointment and 
confirmation of ju11ior in tile post of Chief Secretary-Material or1 record must 
show that non cadre posts are inferior in 3tatus and responsibility. 
indian Administrative Service (Pay} Rules, 1954-Rule 9 sub-rule (1)-
Making of declaration sine qua non of exercise of power under sub-rule. 
indian Administrative Sen·ice (Cadre) Rules 1954-Rule 4(2)-Scope of 
second proviso. 
Mala fides-Onus-Grave impwations against lrolder of office with high res-
ponsibility--Court would be slow to draw inferences from incomplete facts. 
The petitioner was a member of the Indian Administrative Service in the 
cadre of the State of Tamil Nadu. In November, 1969, when the post of Chief 
Secretary to the State fell vacant the petitioner, as the best suited, was selected 
for the post. The draft order in regard to the appointment approved by the 
Chief Minister. the second respondent. stated that the petitioner "is promoted nnd 
posted as Chief Secretary rice [R] retiring from service with effect from the after-
noon of November 13, 1969". The final order in the name of the Governor, duly 
authenticated, issued on the same day, stated that the petitioner "is promoted and 
posted to act as Chief Secretary to Government vice [R] who has been granted 
refused leave ...... " The petitioner was aceordingly promoted as Chief Secre-
tary. 
On the recommendation of the State Government that the posts of Chief 
Secretary and First Member of the Board of Revenue should be deemed to be in 
the same category and should be inter-changeable selection posts the Central 
Government by notification dated January 14, 1970 provided that the pay of 
First Member, Board of Revenue was to be the same as that of the Chief Secre-
tary. The post of First Member Board of Revenue was thus equated to that of 
the Chief Secretarv in rank and status. By notification dated August 31, 1970 
the Government of India enhanced the pay, rank and status of the post of Chief 
·Secretary to that of the Secretary to the Government of India and that post was 
raised above every other cadre post in the State including the post of First Mem-
ber, Board of Revenue. 
On April 17, 1971 the State Government accorded sanction to the creation of 
a temporary post of Deputy Chairman in the State Planning Commission in the 
grade of Chief Secretary for a period of one year and appointed the petitioner to 
that post providing that he shall be entitled to the same rank and emoluments as 
admissible to the post of Chief Secretary. The petitioner did not join thi.'l poot 
and went on leave. On the petitioner's return from leave the post of Deputy 
Chairman was again created for a period of one year in the grade of the Chief 
Secretary and the petitioner was appointed to that post. Against ~ 
tho peti· 
tioner made a representalion that the continuance of the post of Deputy Chairman 
in the rank of Chief Secretary for a period of more than one year would be invalid 
under r. 4(2) of the Indian Administrath•e Service (Cadre) Rules, 195-4. Next 
the State Government created a temporary post of officer on Special Duty for 
streamlining and rationalising the Sales Tax Act, "in the grade of Chief Secretary 
to the Government and appointed the petitioner to that post". He did not join 
this post too and proceeded on leave. After the petitioner was transferred from 
the pust of Deputy Chairman Planning Commission and appointed Officer on 
Special Duty for revision of Sales Tax laws the State Government abolished tbe 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
E. P. ROYAPPA v. TAMIL NADU (~ay, CJ.) 
349 
post of Deputy Chairman ~anctioned under the earlier order and sanctioned the 
creation of a new post of Deputy Chairman "in the Grade of First Member, Board 
of Revtnue" on a pay of Rs. 3000/- per month and appointed a First Me!Jlber of 
the Board of Revenue to that post. 
Besides, on the transfer of the petitioner 
from the post of Chief Secretary a person who was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.