V. A. SUBHADRA AND ORS. versus A. SATYAVAN & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 375 · Decided: 22-08-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
375 
A 
V. A. SlJBHADRA AND ORS. 
v. 
A. SATYAVAN & ORS. 
August 22, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW ANDY. v. C!!ANDRACHUD, JJ.J 
B 
St•rvice 
rnattcr~Rules regarding inter-depor11nenta! 
transfers-Notification 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
is.1ued by the Go1·enunent of Kerala on January 2, 1961-Scope of. 
The appellant, who was a Lower Division Clerk in a department of the State 
Government. had gone on transfer to another department on .her own request. 
Under a notification issued by the State Government, a person could revert to 
his parent department (i) only if and when there is no vacancy for h~m. to con-
tinue in the new unit or (ii) if for any reason his pay in the substantive post in 
the parent department becomes higher than the pay of the new post held by 
him. 
The appellant was offered a temporary post of U.D.C. in the parent de-
partn1ent but she declin~d. The first respondent was therefore pron1oted to the 
post. When a permanent vacancy of Upper Division Clerk occurred in the parent 
department the appellant was appointed to tha:· post and was later promoted to 
a higher post. In a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by respon-
dent No. I the High Court quashed the order of the appellant's appointment and 
her promotion to the higher post. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : Tlte order by which the appellant was appointed as an Upper Divi~ 
sion Clerk in the parent department was illegal and was rightly quashed by the 
High Court. The order promoting the appellant must fall with that order. 
1378FJ 
( 1) Since under paragraph 2 of the no''.ifica-tion an employee can come back 
to his old nnit or deoartment "onlv if and when" either of the two conditions 
is satisfied. the appellant \Vas not entitled to return to her parent department. 
Unless she could validly revert to her old unit she could not be appointed ·to a 
post higher than the one substantively held by her in that unit on the date of her 
transfer. [378B,C] 
(2) Pay :n the substantive post in the parent depa1iment means the pay at-
tached to the post substantively held by an employee on the date of transfer 
to another department. The pay which the appellant would have drawn as an 
Upper Division Clerk in her parent department on the date of her appointment 
\Vas not higher than the pay which she was drawing in the new unit. The sub-
stantive post held by the appellant, apart from the impugned order of promotion, 
\Vas that of a Lower Division Clerk. The comparison, therefore. has to be bet-
Y.'een the pay of that post and the pay of the post which the appeili,:lnt \Vas hold-
ing in the department to which she wa'i transferred. 
[377~H, 378EJ 
CIVIL APPLIATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 247 and 248 
1975. 
Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
29th May, 1974 of the Kentla High Court in Original Petition No . 
5463 of 1971. 
T. S. Krishnamoorzhy Iyer and N. ·Sudhakaran, for the appellant 
(in appeal No. 247175 and respondent no. 2 in C.A. No. 248/75). 
T. C. Raghavan and P. K. Pillai, for respondent no.I (in both the 
appeals). 
K. T. Harindranath (in C.A. No. 248/75) and K. R. Nambiy1ll', 
(for respondent No. 2 in C.A. No. 247 and the appellant in C.A. No. 
248175). 
376 
SlJPREME CDURT REPORTS 
[1976] 1 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was dclivcreXI by 
CHANIJRACHUD, J. This appeal by special leaves arises out of the 
judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Writ Petition No. 5463 of 
1971. 
That petition was filed by the !st respondent A. Satyavan 
against the Stute of Kerala, the Director of the Uepartment of Museums 
A 
and Zoos, Trivandrum and the appellant Smt. V. A. Subhadra. 
The 
main relief sought by the J st respondent was that the order passed by 
B 
the State of Kerala on March 18, 1971 appointing the appellant as an 
Upper Division Clerk in the Department of Museums and Zoos be 
quashed. 
The appellant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in 
the 
Department of Museums and Zoos, Trivandrum in J 949. 
She was 
confirmed in that post in 1950. 
The !st respm1dent was appointed as 
c 
.a Lower Division Clerk in the same Department in 1955 and 
was 
confirmed in 1963. 
On April 9, 1962 the appellant, on her own re-
quest, was transfered to the Department of Agriculture. 
That was an 
inter-departmental trn.isfcr. 
Though on transfer the appellant became 
the junior-most employee in the Department of Agriculture, her rank 
.and lien were maintained in the Department of Museums a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.