MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE versus H. VENKATARAMANAPPA

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 721 · Decided: 25-04-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
... 
~ 
\ 
~ 
.., 
'· 
~---
~, 
" 
• 
• 
~ 
" 
·~ 
' 
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
BANGALORE 
v. 
H. VENKATARAMANAPPA 
April 25, 1978 
721 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JASWANT SINGH AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Seniority in and clairn to a post-When there is re-designation of posts in 
the integrated structure, claim should be tested with reference to the post pre-
viously held and pay scale and the equated post and scale under the new 
structurr!. 
The respondent \Vas \Vorking under the !\1ysore Transport Department a~ a 
Store Keeper in the grade of Rs. 75-5-100. 
Pursuant to the State Reorganisa-
tion Act, 1956 son1e territories belonging to the existing States of Bombay and 
Hyderabad were merged in the State of Mysore and this resulted ~n the tra?s-
fer of certain employees of Hubli region of Bombay State and Ra1chur section 
.~f the Hyderabad State Road Transport department to the 
services 
of 
the 
fi.1ysore State Road Transport Department. The grades of pay of the existing 
units were lower than the grades of pay governing the incoming 
transferred 
units which caused considerable discontent among the employees of the existing 
units. 
Ultimately an Industrial Truce was signed on 10-1-1958 which was to 
become effective from 1-4-1957, under which the scales of pay 
attaching to 
different posts were revised irrespective of the transport service the incumbents 
of those posts had come. 
On 8-3-1958 the State Government on a considcra-
tion of several factors, published a fresh equation of posts with corresponding 
scales of pay. 
In this ne\V dispensation, the post held by the respondent 
i.e. 
Store Keeper i1_1 the scale of 75-5-100 came to be equate:l with that of an 
Assistant Store-Keeper in the scale of Rs. 92-8-140-10-180. 
The 
respondent 
gave his option to te nc\v scales from 1-4-1957 and therefore his pay was 
fixed @ Rs. 132/- in the scale of Rs. 92-180. 
Thereafter, he \Vas temporarily 
promoted as Store Keeper in the grade of Rs. 124-220 and reverted as Junior 
As~istnnt and \Vas again temporarily promoted as Store Keeper. 
A writ peti-
tion filed by the respondent claiming seniority as Assistant Store Keeper under 
the new equation over certain others were dismissed in 1961. The respondent 
then filed a \\Tit petition that he may be put in the scale of Store Keeper w.c.f. 
1-4-1957 by virtue of the fact that the post ·which he held was designated as 
··store-Keeper'' prior to the Industrial truce. 
The Writ Petition failed before 
a single Judge but was allov;'ed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High 
Court. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court 
Per Fazrd Ali J. (On b.?h&lf of Jasv;'ant Singh and '1i1nself) 
B-
D· 
E: 
F 
' 
HEJ_.D: 1. The High Court over~looked nvo important facts: (1) that the 
post of Store Keeper at the time of the industrial truce did not carry the same 
G. 
scale as the post of Store Keeper under the new dispensation which came into 
existence on 26-6-19 58 nor was this new post contemplated at the time \;i,rhen 
-. 
the industrial tru~e \Vas signed which was six months before this event; (2) that 
the. respon_dcnt himself has accepted the terms of the circular giving him 
the 
option ana had chosen to opt for the new scheme as a result of which he \Vas 
given the scale of Rs. 92-1_80 and his salary fixed @ Rs. 132/. p.n1. 
[724 F-GJ 
(b) !he grievance of the respondent, if any, \Vas 
purely 
illusory. The 
H. 
substantive post held by the respondent \Vas below the post of Store Keeper and 
until he had by regular promotion reached the higher post he could not cl;im 
to be appointed to the new post of Store Keeper which carried a higher scale, 
722 
SUPREME COURT l\EPORTS 
(1978] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
namely Rs. 124-220. The mere fact that the respondent had officiated on the 
post of Store Keeper in a purely temporary capacity would not clothe him with 
a right _to the post of Store Keeper. In fact, the previous writ petition filed by 
the respondent was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the respon-
dent could not claim any seniority to the post of Store Keeper. 
In these 
cir-
cumstances, therefore, neither in law nor according to rules could the respon· 
dent be entitled to be appointed permanently to the post of Store Keeper. 
[724 G-H. 725 A) 
18 
( c) The respondent could not claim the scale 
of the 
post 
which 
was 
D 
E 
F 
G 
actually held by him after he had exercised his option and in this regard his 
equivalent post would be that of a

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