TEJSHREE GHAG ETC. ETC. versus PRAKASH PARASHURAM PATIL AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 17-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TEJSHREE GHAG ETC. ETC. 
v. 
PRAKASH PARASHURAM PATIL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
MAY 17, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Transfer-Transfer of incumbents from higher time scale to lower time 
C scale-Incumbents suffering loss of pay-Co-employees also transferred from 
lower to higher scale-Transfer orders set aside by High Court-Co-employees 
case that the terms and conditions of service governed by Rules of 2005, thus 
order of High Court not sustainable-On appeal held: Terms and conditions 
of services of employees unless altered expressly would be governed by Rules 
D in existence at the time when the impugned orders were passed-Rules of 
2005 not given retrospective effect-Executive power of passing transfer 
orders can be exercised only in terms of extant Rules-Also principles of 
natural justice were to be complied with-Thus, order of High Court upheld-
Maharashtra Education Service Administrative Officer of Municipal School 
Board, _Assistant Deputy Educational Inspector, Assistant Project Officer, 
E Assistant Teacher in Junior Colleges of Education, Coordinator, Councellor, 
Extension Officer in State Council of Educational Research and Training 
Pune, Lecturer in Junior Colleges, Programme Assistant, Science Supervisor, 
District Science Supervisor, Subject Assistant, Subject Expert and Technical 
Assistant (Recruitment) Rules, 2005. 
F 
In the cadre of Maharashtra Education Service Group 'C' there were 
16 categories of posts. Pursuant to an advertisement in 1991, respondents 
were directly appointed as Assistant Deputy Education Inspector. Thereafter, 
appointments were made for the post of Assistant Teacher, Physical Education 
Teacher and Science Supervisor. No seniority list was published. A purported 
G seniority list was published in the year 2001 only. Objections were invited. 
H 
Respondents were transferred to the post of Asstt Project Officer/Asstt 
Teacher 'nd Asstt. Teacher/Asstt. Project Officer were transferred to the 
posts of ADEL As a result the quantum of pay of the respondent was reduced. 
Respondents challenged the transfer order. Original applications were 
214 
_,_ 
TFJSHREE GHAG ETC. v. PRAKASH PARASHURAM PATEL 
215 
~ dismissed and also the Review applications were dismissed. Private A 
respondents filed writ petitions. The order of the tribunal and the order in 
Review petitions were set aside. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The cadre of Maharashtra Education Service Group 'C' B 
consists of 16 categories of posts. All posts at all material times were not 
treated to be equivalent at least in the matter of scale of pay. It is stated that 
a decision l.1 sar dion three tier scale of pay to full time teachers teaching in 
higher school was taken by the State Government. According to it if the 
direction of the High Court is given effect to, the same would violate the 
conditions of service of the employees concerned working in the Education C 
Department and only in that view of the matter Maharashtra Education Service 
Administrative Officer of Municipal School Board, Assistant Deputy 
Educational Inspector, Assistant Project Officer, Assistant Teacher in Junior 
Colleges of Education, Coordinator, Councellor, Extension Officer in State 
Council of Educational Research and Training Pone, Lecturer in Junior D 
Colleges, Programme Assistant, Science Supervisor, District Science 
Supervisor, Subject Assistant, Subject Expert and Technical Assistant 
(Recruitment) Rules, 2005 have been framed. By reason of2005 Rules the 
effect of the judgment of the High Court is not sought to be taken away. It was 
not given retrospective effect. Rules framed by the State had also not been 
brought to the notice of the High Court. 
[Para 9, 10 andl4) [219-D, E, B, C; 220-A] 
1.2. Respondents were holders of posts on which they were employed. 
E 
The posts carried the scales of pay prescribed therefor. The terms and 
conditions of their service, thus, unless altered expressly, would be governed F 
by the rules which were in existence at the time when the impugned orders 
were passed. It is true that the State has the power to alter the terms and 
conditions of service even with retrospective effect by making rule framed ; 
under proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, but it is 
~ 
also well-settled that the rules so made ordinarily should state so expressly. 
(Paras 11 and 12) [219-F, G] ' G 
1.3. The orders of tr

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