SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND ORS. versus A. SANKARAIAH

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 923 · Decided: 17-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
A. SANKARAIAH 
•OCTOBER 17, 2003 
[ASHOK BHAN. AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
Service Law: 
Retrenchment-On being declared surplus respondent redeployed as 
a fresh entrant under 1966 Office Memorandum of Ce'?tral Government- C 
1991 Office Memorandum providing higher pay scale on completion of 5 
years service in present department-Benefit of past service for entitlement 
of higher pay scale-Held, the purpose of the two Office Memorandums 
was not to disturb the seniority of the existing employees-:-Hence, the past 
service cannot be taken into account. 
D 
The services of the respondent, who was appointed as Junior 
Engineer on 30.5.1980 in Central Government, was retrenched on 
being declared surplus. Government of India, by Office Memorandum 
(OM) dated 25.2.1966, provided a scheme for redeployment of surplus 
staff in other Government offices where vacancies exist. Under the E 
scheme, the respondent was appointed as a Junior Engineer in CPWD 
on 19.8.1988 as a fresh entrant. The letter' of appointment of the 
respondent specifically stated that he would not be granted the benefit 
of past service rendered by him prior to deployment for the purposes 
of seniority. The Central Government, by OM dated 27.3.1991, provided F 
that with effect from 1.1.1986, the Junior Engineers ofCPWD, on their 
completion of 5 years service in the entry grade pay scale, may be 
placed in the higher grade pay scale. The OM further clarified that the 
benefit of past service rendered prior to deployment would not be 
counted for fixation of revised pay scales. The CPWD under the OM G 
granted revised pay scale to the respondent w.e.f. 19.8.1993 i.e. the date 
when he completed 5 years of service in the CPWD. The res~ondent 
filed a petition before Central Administrative Tribunal claiming 
revised pay scale w.e.f. · 19.8.1988 by taking into account his past 
service. The Tribunal allowed the petition of the respondent. The H 
923 
924 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A review application filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal. 
Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Office Memorandum (OM) dated 25.2.1966, providing 
B facility for re-deployment/alternative placement of the retrenched 
employees in other Government Offices, specifically mentioned that re-
deployment of surplus staff was treated as transfer in public interest 
for the specific purposes like transfer-TA, joining time, joining time 
pay, leave and pension and for all other intents and purposes, the 
C surplus staff on re-deployment would be treated as a fresh entrant in 
the service of the new department. The purpose behind this OM was 
not to disturb the seniority of the persons who were already working 
in the equivalent post in that department. This fact is re-enforced by 
the subsequent OM dated 16.8.1991 wherein it is mentioned that the 
D intention behind the policy was that the benefit of past service could 
not be allowed to re-depfoyed employees so as not to affect the interest 
of the employees already senior in the office/organisation in which they 
are re-deployed. The subsequent OM also clarified that the Junior 
Engineers, re-deployed in the CPWD, are not entitled to the past 
E service benefits for getting the benefit of two higher pay scales as the 
same benefit was not admissible to the Junior Engineers, who are 
senior to them. (929-D-F) 
1.2. If the OM dated 27.3.1991 is understood and interpreted in 
the manner it has bee11 done by the Tribunal, it would create an 
F anomalous situation. Juniors in service would get higher pay than their 
seniors. To avoid such a situation, the policy framed for the re-
deployment of the surplus staff made clear that the re-deployed staff 
in the new department would be treated as a. fresh entrant and the 
service rendered by him in the previous department would no~ be, 
G counted towards seniority. [929-G, 930-A-B) 
1.3 OM dated 27.3.1991 gives the benefit of revised higher pay 
scale to its Junior Engineers on completion of 5 years of service in 
CPWD in entry grade pay scale. The respondent could not be given 
H for the benefit of working in the pre-revised scale in his previobs 
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER v. A. SANKARAIAH [BHAN. J.] 925 
department. The emphasis in the OM was for the service of 5 years A 
rendered in the CPWD and not for working in a particular grade in 
his service career, as understood by the Tribunal. Th

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