UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus R. VASUDEVA MURTHY AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 06-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 978 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
R. VASUDEVA MURTHY AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9113-9126 of 2003) 
AUGUST 6, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Service Law - Pay scale - Revision of - Entitlement to 
- Office Memorandum dated 19.10.1994 issued by Ministry 
C of Finance, Government of India in regard to revision of pay 
sea/es of Draughtsmen Grade I, Grade II and Grade Ill -
Interpretation of - Held: The 0. M. must be construed to make 
it effective and operative, on the principle expressed in the 
maxim 'Vt res magis valeat quam pereat" -Particular length 
D of service alone was not sufficient to entitle an employee to 
earn upgradation I revision of pay, it accrued only if the posts 
existed, not otherwise - The 0. M. did not give an absolute 
and blanket right to the Draughtsmen to claim upgradation I 
revision in the salary as soon as they put in requisite years 
E 
of continuous service on the respective post to become 
eligible either for higher pay scale or for promotion - Unless, 
there were requisite vacancies in the respective cadres of 
Draughtsmen Grade I, Grade II and Grade Ill, the 
Draughtsmen could not be granted the said relief - Maxim -
F 
"Ut res magis valeat quam pereat". 
Interpretation of Statutes - Purposive construction - Held: 
The courts must lean against a construction which reduces a 
statute to a nullity. 
G 
The pay scales of Draughtsmen Grade I, Grade II and 
Grade Ill in all the Government of India offices were 
revised by the Ministry of Finance vide Office 
Memorandum dated 19-10-1994. 
H 
978 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. R. VASUDEVA 
979 
MURTHY AND ORS. 
Many Draughtsmen approached the different A 
Benches of Central Administrative Tribunals for extending 
them the benefits of the O.M. Since the benefit was 
extended to them by the different Tribunals, the Union of 
India and/or Department of Telecommunications 
approached the jurisdictional High Courts challenging it. 
B 
However, different High Courts interpreted the O.M. 
differently. While the Karnataka High Court and the High 
Court of Gujarat held that once a Draughtsman put in 
requisite length of service, he automatically became 
entitled for upgradation I revision of his salary as per the 
C 
O.M.; the Madras High Court and full Bench of Andhra 
Pradesh High Court held that the upgradation/ revision 
was applicable only if there existed vacancies in the 
respective Grades. The order of the Madras High Court 
was not challenged before the Supreme Court. The 
D 
instant appeals were filed against the judgments passed 
by the· Karnataka High Court and the High Court of 
Gujarat. 
·Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The true, effective, operative and correct 
interpretation of the Office Memorandum No.13(1 )-IC/~1 
(dated 19.10.1994 is that, as and when vacancy arises in 
the cadre of Grade I Draughtsmen, after putting in 
requisite minimum service as per said Notification, then 
and only then the Draughtsmen Grade II would be entitled 
for the higher pay scale not otherwise. The entitlement 
E 
F 
for upgradation of salary is dependent on the number of 
vacancies available and not otherwise. The eligibility to 
claim higher pay scale/ upgradation is one thing but G 
availability of vacancy is another. One may be eligible to 
claim higher pay scale or upgradation but it is of course 
, subject to availability of posts. If posts are not available 
t!len, no benefit could be accrued to the Draughtsmen. 
H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A The said O.M. does not give an absolute and blanket right 
to these Draughtsmen to claim upgradation/revision in 
the salary as soon as they put in requisite years of 
continuous service on the respective post to become 
eligible either for higher pay scale or for promotion. 
8 Unless, there are requisite vacancies in the respective 
cadres of Draughtsmen Grade I, Grade II and Grade Ill, the 
Draughtsmen cannot be granted the said relief. [Paras 24, 
25] [991-F-H; 992-A-C] 
1.2. It Ls well settled that the courts must lean against 
C a construction which reduces a statute to a nullity. The 
O.M. must be so construed to make it effective and 
operative, on the principle expressed in the maxim: "Ut 
res magis valeat quam pereaf' meaning thereby that the 
thing may rather have effect than be destroyed. When the 
D words employed in the O.M are clear, plain and 
unambiguous, then they are reasonably susceptible to 
only one meaning. Cou

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