S.K. RATTAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 743 · Decided: 28-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. GOKHALE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 12 S.C.R. 743 
S.K. RATTAN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1921-1922 of 2010) 
NOVEMBER 28, 2013 
[H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Service Law - Transfer- Of appellant from CBI to NCRB 
A 
B 
by executive order - Subsequently, appellant came to know 
that he was not given revised pay scale as received by his c 
batchmate who remained at CBI - Application of appellant for 
grant of pay scale at par with his CBI batchmate - Dismissed 
by Tribunal - Order upheld by High Court - On appeal, held: 
When appellant was transferred from CBI to NCRB, he had 
no option but to join wherever he is placed - Until appellant 0 
retired from service, no separate service rules were framed 
for officers in NCRB - He continued to be governed by the 
rules framed for officers of CBI -Tribunal ignored the basic 
. principles that where an employee is transferred to another 
organization, although he has to join over there, he cannot 
E 
be made to suffer in his service conditions as well as in 
continuity of his service without framing rules under Article 309 
of the Constitution - It would amount to discrimination for no 
justifiable reasons - Direction given that pay of appellant be 
appropriately corrected as sought by him and his pension and 
F 
other service benefits also be corrected on that basis. 
The appellant was a Deputy Superintendent of Police 
in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). By an 
executive order, he was transferred to National Crime 
Records Bureau (NCRB). When the appellant was 
G 
transferred to NCRB his pay, as it was in the CBI, 
remained protected. However, subsequently, the 
appellant found out that he was not given revised pay-
743 
H 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A scale as received by his batchmate who remained at CBI. 
Representation made by appellant in this regard before 
the NCRB was rejected. The appellant eventually retired 
from service whereafter he preferred an application 
before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was also 
8 rejected. The order was upheld by the High Court, and 
therefore the instant appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Until the appellant retired fro!Ji his service, 
c no separate service rules were framed for :the officers in 
the NCRB. The appellant continued to be governed by the 
rules framed for the officers of the CBI. When he was 
transferred from the CBI to NCRB he had no option but 
to join wherever he is placed. Having joined over there, 
o there was no occasion for him to protest until 1996-97 
when he came to know that his salary was lesser as 
compared to his colleagues of the same batch in the CBI. 
It is at that stage that he made a representation and the 
representation having been rejected, he had no option 
E but to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. The 
Central Administrative Tribunal ignored the basic 
principles that where an employee is transferred to 
another organization, although he has to join over there, 
he cannot be made to suffer in his service conditions as 
F well as in continuity of his service without framing rules 
under Article 309 of the Constitution. It would amount to 
discrimination for no justifiable reasons. [Para 13] [751 • 
D·G] 
1.2. As far as the appellant is concerned, inasmuch 
G as a wrong has been done to him, it is required to be 
corrected. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the 
High Court have failed in doing so. In the circumstances, 
it is directed that the pay of appellant will be appropriately 
corrected as sought by him and his pension and other 
H 
S.K. RATIAN v. UNION OF !NOIA 
745 
service benefits will also be corrected on that basis. 
A 
[Paras 14, 15] [752-A-B, C] 
K. Madhavan and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. (1987) 
4 SCC 566: 1988 (1) SCR 421; State of U.P. and Ors. vs. 
Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402: 2004 (3) SCR 337 -
B 
cited. 
Case Law Reference: 
Para 10 
1988 (1) SCR 421 
2004 (3) SCR 337 
cited 
cited 
Para 10 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
1921-1922 of 2010 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2009 in Writ 
0 
Petition (Civil) No. 2080 of 2003 and dated 31.07 .2009 in 
Review Petition No. 277 of 2009 of the High Court of Delhi at 
New Delhi. 
• 
P.P. Rao, Rajesh Rattan, D.S. Chauhan, Akshat 
Kulshrestha for the Appellant. 
E 
K. Radhakrishnan, Kiran Bhardwaj, B.K. Prasad (for 
Shreekant N. Terdal) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H.L. GOKHALE, J. 1.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.