LexSTATE OF MYSORE AND ANR. versus H. SRINIVASAMURTHY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- ;. STATE OF MYSORE AND ANR. v. H. SRINIVASAMURTHY January 29, 1976 [R. S. S,ARKARIA AND S. MuRT•zA FAz-'-I~ Au, JJ.] 255 Constuuuon of India-Articles 14 and I6-Pe11alty-Di.1crin1ination-Civil Service-Departing fronz Adnlinistratire Po/icy. The respondent entered service of the State of 1lysore in 1935 as Instructor of Tailoring in the Department of Public Instruction. In 1949 he went on deputation in the Polytechnic In_stitute at Devangere. One K. N. Chetty \Vh? was far junior to respondent was also sc:tt on deputation to another similar insti- A B tution in 1949. K. N. Chetty \Vas absorbed from the date he went on deputa- C tion in the new post but respondent was not so absorbed. In 1955, for no· fault of the respondent, Government passed orders reverting him to his parent de- partn1ent. In 1956, respondent, was again posted on deputation. The interven~ ing pcri1)d beiwecn his reversion and re-posting Vi'as treated as leave. On re- organisation of State respondent's services \.Vere allotted to the new State of I\<1yserc. The respondent made several representations and stated that he was discrimir.:::iled against and treated differently from K. N. Chetty v;ho was junior to him in the parent dep:::irtment. The Public Service Comn1ission found that respondent's case v.'as on all fours with tha1 of Chetty nn<l that he deserved simi- D lar tr~at1nent. The Commission follnd that the temporary reversion of the res- pondent io his parent department was not justified. The Government in 1964 ordered the absorption of the respondent in the Department of Technical Edu- cation fron1 the date of the order subject to the conditions that he would not be entitled to the benefit of revision of scales of pay that had heen effected in 19:57 and 1961 and that he would not be given any more financial benefit or revision of pny or nddition inCrem~nt for his previou~ service. The respondent filed a Writ Petition challenging these conditions and praying E for a dir~ction that he should be absorbed in the Department of Technical Edu- cation fron1 the date of his initial appointment in 1949, and granted conse- quential benefits of the revision of p<1y scales etc. The appellant opposed the \Vrit P~tition on the grounds that the respondent had no legal right to be ab- sorbed in the Department of Technica~ Education \Vith effect frorn a particular anterior date or to be given the revised pay scales applicable to those borne permanently in the service of that department. Chctty's case Was sought to be distin_guished on the _ground that he \Vas absorbed in the year 1951 as against F the respondent's absorption in 1964 and that there \1,:as a break in the service of the re~pondent. The 1-:ligh Court allowed the Writ Petition and issued a direction that absorp· tion of the respondent in the Department of Technical Education be given effect from 1949 when he initially assumed duty on deputation. The High Court aho declared that he would be entitled to <ill consequential benefits. The appellant in an appeal by Special Leave relied on the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of K. V. Raja!akshn>iah Setty v. State of Mysore [1967] G 2 S.C.R. 70. Diss111issing the appeal, HELD : In ~he present case it appears that the State had evolved a principle pursuant to \vh1ch all the employees who came on deputation from nther de~ partmci:its to the Polytechnic, exceptii:g the respondent, were absorbed perma- nently rn the Department of Technical Education with effect from 1he ~at~s on which they came on deputation. Even Chctty who was ndmittedlv 1un1or to the :esponden~ <ind was identically situated ~--as accorded the sam~ t~eatment. It 1s an undisputed fact that 6 other employees who were similarly situated. were absorbed from the date on which they initially joined. duty after deputation to the Polytechnic. [259 A-C, 260 DJ H 256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] 3 S.C.R. A . There was no justification whatever to depart from this principle of policy in the case of the respondent. His reversion was not ordered owing to any fault on his part. The said reversion could not be treated as a break :in service since it was treated as leave, nor did it nmount to reduction in rank. [260 F-HJ The High Court ·was therefore, justified in granting the relief, it did to the respondent. 1261 Bl "Rajalaksfvniah Setty \·. State of lvfysore, [1967] 2 S.C.R. 70, di~tinguished. ~ ... B CIVIL AP
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.