1. Government servant with quasi-permanent status in one grade transferred to another post — Dispute over whether quasi-permanent status carries over to a post in a different grade. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1958 Supreme(SC) 13
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
18th February, 1958.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR AND V. BOSE, JJ.
K. S. Srinivasan, Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1957 with Petition No. 81 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. S. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar, Senior Advocate, Dr. C. V. L. Narayan, Advocate, with him, for Appellant; M/s. P. A. Mehta, R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, for Respondent.
Advocates:
C.V.L.NARAYAN, K.S.KRISHNASWAMI AIYANGAR, P.A.Mehta, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar
C.V.L.NARAYAN, K.S.KRISHNASWAMI AIYANGAR, P.A.Mehta, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar
Article 311(2) protects government servants only if they possess a right to the post. Quasi-permanent status does not transfer between posts of different grades/cadres, and identical pay scales do not prove that posts belong to the same grade.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 311(2) - Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 - Rules 2, 3, 4, 6(1) and 7 - Protection against dismissal or reduction in rank - The constitutional guarantee under Article 311(2) applies only when a government servant has a right to a post or rank under the terms of employment or service rules. If a servant has no such right, such as when appointed on an officiating or temporary basis, termination of employment does not deprive them of any right and is not, by itself, a punishment. (Para 7)
(B) Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 - Rule 6(1)(ii) - Meaning of "reduction" in posts - The expression "reduction in the number of posts available for Government servants not in permanent service" is not confined to the absolute abolition of posts and includes keeping posts in abeyance as a measure of economy. (Para 12)
(C) Service Law - Determination of "Grade" or "Cadre" - Identity of pay scales is not the sole or conclusive test for determining whether different posts belong to the same grade or cadre. Posts must be constituted or recognized as such by proper authority, and the nature of duties and responsibility are relevant factors. (Para 15)
(D) Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 - Rule 4(b) - Consultation with Public Service Commission - Where recruitment to a specified post requires consultation with the Public Service Commission, a declaration of quasi-permanent status cannot be issued without such consultation. A servant cannot claim the benefit of a rule while ignoring the mandatory conditions attached to it. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
A government servant was declared quasi-permanent in the grade of Public Relations Officer. Due to a reduction in posts (kept in abeyance), he was appointed to the post of Assistant Station Director in a temporary capacity. A subsequent order stated that he would carry his quasi-permanent status from the former post to the new post. Later, the government determined that the two posts did not belong to the same grade or cadre and that the appointment was irregular. He was asked to relinquish the post or accept a lower-ranking temporary post. He challenged this as a violation of Article 311(2) and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the posts of Public Relations Officer and Assistant Station Director were not in the same grade or cadre despite having identical pay scales. Consequently, the quasi-permanent status held in the former post did not transfer to the latter. The order allowing the transfer of status was based on a mistake of fact and did not constitute a fresh, valid declaration of quasi-permanent status under the service rules, especially since the mandatory consultation with the Public Service Commission was not conducted.
Issues: Whether the appellant had a right to the post of Assistant Station Director such that its termination violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution; whether the posts of Public Relations Officer and Assistant Station Director belonged to the same grade or cadre; and whether the order of December 14, 1953, constituted a valid independent declaration of quasi-permanent status.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 311(2) is attracted only if the employee has a right to the post. Since the posts were not in the same grade or cadre, the appellant did not carry his quasi-permanent status to the new post. An order stating a servant "carries" status from a previous post is not a fresh declaration under the Temporary Service Rules if it lacks the required specifics and the mandatory consultation with the Public Service Commission.
Result: The appeal and the petition are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the transferred post belongs to the same grade or cadre as the specified post — Whether termination of service violates Article 311(2) of the Constitution. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Identical pay scales do not establish same grade or cadre — Quasi-permanent status is specific to a cadre and cannot be shifted to a different grade. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 )
4. Termination of quasi-permanent service is lawful upon reduction of posts in the specified grade, unless a post of the same grade is held by a temporary employee. (Para 9 , 12 , 14 )
6. When does Article 311(2) protect a government servant from termination?
Article 311(2) applies when a servant has a right to a post or rank under the contract of employment or service rules. If the servant has no such right, such as being on probation or officiating, termination is not prima facie a punishment. (Para 7 )
7. Does identical pay scale imply that two posts belong to the same grade or cadre?
No. Identical pay scales are not the sole test. Posts must be constituted or recognized by proper authority as belonging to the same grade or cadre, typically involving duties of approximately the same character or degree of responsibility. (Para 9 , 15 )
8. What constitutes a reduction in posts for the purpose of terminating quasi-permanent service?
Reduction is not limited to permanent abolition. Keeping posts in abeyance as a measure of economy constitutes a reduction in the number of posts available for government servants not in permanent service. (Para 12 )
9. Is consultation with the Public Service Commission mandatory for declaring quasi-permanent status?
Yes. Under Rule 4(b) of the Temporary Service Rules, no declaration of quasi-permanent status shall be issued except after consultation with the Commission where recruitment to the specified post requires such consultation. (Para 22 )
Judgment
S. K. Das, J.: On May 1, 1946, Shri K. S. Srinivasan, appellant before us, was appointed to a post of Liaison Officer, All India Radio, on a pay of Rs. 350 per month in the scale of Rs. 350-20-450-25/2-550. The appointment was made on the recommendation of the then Federal Public Service Commission, and the advertisement or memorandum of information for candidates, as it is more properly called, issued by the Public Service Commission when calling for applications for the said post, related to the recruitment for nine posts of Listeners Research Officers and nine posts of Liaison Officers, All Indian Radio. It was stated in the said memorandum that the posts were permanent and pensionable, but would be filled on a temporary basis; the memorandum further stated that if the persons concerned were retained in service and confirmed in the posts, they would be allowed pensionary benefits and would also be eligible to contribute to the General Provident Fund. In the first instance the appointments were made on probation for six months subject to termination on certain conditions mentioned in para 4 of the memorandum, which need not be set out at this stage. The duties of a Liaison Officer were stated in para 5 of the memorandum, the main duty being to organise and conduct publicity for the programmes and other activities of a Radio Station. The designation Liaison Officer was later changed to Public Relations Officer, and along with other posts of Listener Research Officer and Assistant Station Director, the posts of Public Relations Officers were upgraded to Rs. 450-25-500-30-800 with effect from January 1, 1947. On May 23, 1952, the Director General, All India Radio, passed an order bearing No. 2 (1) A/50 in which it was stated that whereas the appellant had been in continuous Government service for more than three years and a declaration had been issued to him in pursuance of Rr. 3 and 4 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, and whereas an appointment to the post of Public Relations Officer was required to be made in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission and their concurrence to the appointment had been obtained, the appellant was appointed to the Public Relations Officer s grade in a quasi-permanent capacity with effect from May 1, 1949. On September 3, 1952, however, the appellant received an order from the said Director-General in which it was stated that his services would not be required after October 6, 1952. The appellant was naturally taken by surprise on receipt of this order and made a representation on September 8, 1952, in which he stated that as a quasi-permanent Public Relations Officer he had a claim to an alternative post in the same grade, so long as any post in the same grade was held by a Government servant not in permanent or quasipermanent service. On September 13, 1952, the appellant was informed by means of an order that he was appointed to officiate as Assistant Station Director, Madras (the appellant was then working as Public Relations Officer. All India Radio, Madras) in a purely temporary capacity until further orders. On September 19, 1952, the appellant was informed that his representation dated September 8, 1952, was under consideration and a suggestion was made that in the meantime he should apply for one of the posts of Assistant Station Directors which had been advertised by the Union Public Service Commission. Then, on October 4, 1952, the appellant submitted a further representation in which he said that under the rules in question, namely the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, he was entitled to be retained in service in a post of the same grade and under the same appointing authority; and it was, therefore, not necessary that he should be re-selected for the post of Assistant Station Director by the Union Public Service Commission. In the concluding paragraph of his representation the appellant stated that in deference to th
