L. PARMESWARAN versus CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 1015 · Decided: 15-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 1015 
·--.>· 
L. PARMESWARAN 
A 
v. 
CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER & . O.RS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1325 of 2008) 
' 
FEBRUARY 15, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
~ 
Service Law.- Pay protection - On repatriation to parent 
department -Employee promoted in the ex-cadre post -
Repatriation on lower post in furtherance of a policy decision c 
- Courts below upholding his repatriation - On appeal, held: 
There is no legal infirmity in repatriation order - However, in 
the facts of the case that the employee had worked in the ex-
cadre department for a long period, his pay is protected, in 
exercise of jurisdiction u/Article 142 of the Constitution -
D 
--1 
ConstituJion of India, 1950 - Artic"fe 142. 
Appellant was recruited as a casual artisan in the 
. Electrical Division of Railways. A list was. prepared for 
absorption of the electrical khalasis in the regular post. 
Appellant's name was included in the list. He volunteered 
E 
for the post of Dies,1 Mechanic Grade II and was promoted 
to that post. Thereafter again he was promoted as Diesel 
Mechanic Grade I. He was asked to pass the trade test in 
Electrical wing which he refused. Thereafter Railway 
..;. 
°) 
administration took a policy decision to repatriate ex-
F 
cadre employees on completion of a period of four years. 
In furtherance of the decision, the respondent was 
repatriated to his parent department i.e. electrical wing 
stating that his promotion was due as technician Grade 
Ill in his parent department. The respondent having been G 
> 
repatriated to a post with lesser pay scale, challenged the 
order, and approached Administrative Tribunal. Tribunal 
dismissed his application. The order was further upheld 
by High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
1015 
H 
t 
~ 
1016 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
-.I...-
HELD: 1.1 Being in an ex-cadre post, the appellant 
did not derive any right to contin~ue therein. He could be 
reverted to his cadre post. He opted for the Mechanical 
B 
side despite the fact that his parent cadre was Electrical 
Wing. If the appellant is allowed to continue in the ex-cadre 
post, he will be depriving some employees who are entitled 
/.-
to be promoted to the said post. Such a deprivation from 
the right of promotion to a duly qualified employee, 
f 
therefore, cannot be countenanced. There is no legal 
c infirmity in the order repatriating him to his parent cadre. 
[Para 13] [1021-F-H] 
lnder Pal Yadav v. Union of India 2005 (11) SCC 301; 
);--
BhadeiRai v. Union of India and Ors. JT 2005 (11) SC 311-
; 
D distinguished. 
1.2 The post held by the appellant was an ex-cadre 
~ 
post. He opted for change in this cadre. He did not have 
any right therefor. He in his own cadre might not have 
been promoted particularly when he has not passed the 
E requisite trade test. [Para 15] [1022-0] 
I 
1.3 In a case of this nature, a balance has to be struck. 
):-
In the peculiar facts of the present case, despite the law 
operating in the field, appellant might have been recruited 
F 
as a casual employee but the fact that he was brought on 
. 'i""'
the rolls of a regular cadre is not in dispute. The fact that 
(" ....,; 
he had passed a trade test is also not in dispute. It 
I 
furthermore stands admitted that as an ex-cadre 
t 
employee or otherwise he was promoted twice. He had 
been holding the said post for a period of more than 12 
. I 
G years. A policy decision was taken by the Railway 
} 
Administration only on or about 15.10.2001. Prior thereto, 
../ ..... 
I-
there was no requirement to repatriate an employee to 
' ,. 
his parent cadre after a period of four years. The policy 
decision, furthermore,_ was not given immediate effect. 
H Despite the said policy decision, the appellant was 
..,_ . 
""· 
~ 
L. PARMESWARAN v. CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER 
1017 
& ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
~.> 
permitted to work for another two years. Faced with such A 
situation, it is a fit case where this Court should exercise 
its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India 
to do complete justice to the parties. While upholding the 
validity of the impugned order, interest of justice would 
be met if the pay of the appellant is protected in the scale B 
of pay of Rs. 4500-7500 to be fitted in the post of Technician 
Grade Ill for which the scale of pay is Rs. 3050 • 7000. 
[Paras 17 and 18] [1023-H; 1024-A-F] 
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) 
and O

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.