Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE A.M. AHMADI, V. RAMASWAMI AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.
Civil Appeals Nos. 552 to 554 of 1991
SHANKAR PANDURANG JADHAV AND OTHERS
Versus
VICE-ADMIRAL, FLAG OFFICER, COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF AND OTHERS.
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1261 of 1989
THOPPIL RAMAKRISHNAN AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS.
Civil Appeal Nos. 552 to 554 of 1991{From the Judgment and Order dated October 9, 1989 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Bombay in Transfer Application Nos. 430, 431 and 433 of 1987} and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1261 of 1989, decided on February 5,1991
Advocates appeared
B.K. Mehta, Senior Advocate (C.P. Pandey, M. Chopra and V.N. Sharma, Advocates, with him) for the Appellants; K. Lahiri, Senior Advocate (Ms Kitti Kumaramangalam and Ms Sushma Suri, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
Employment and Service matter - Time Keeping Department - Promotional posts – Cadre - Counsel for appellant-petitioners contended that employees working in Time Keeping Department of Naval establishment perform duties which are distinct from ordinary clerical duties and therefore they constitute a separate and distinct cadre to which are attached certain additional monetary benefits, such as, overtime payment, productivity linked bonus, etc., which would be lost to them if they are transferred to other administrative departments of Naval establishment - He submitted that since Junior Time Keepers did not have sufficient avenues for promotion and were stagnating at base level and Senior Time Keepers had no promotional avenue altogether, their grievance was sought to be redressed by providing them further avenues of promotion under the Presidential Order, without depriving them of their identity and special benefits available as belonging to industrial wing of the establishment - Held, Court concluding that those who joined the Time Keeping Department after Presidential Order became effective, either by a direct posting in that department as LDC or on transfer to that department, have no right to continue in that department merely because their transfer would entail economic loss since they are governed by merger scheme which had become operative before their entry in that department - They were borne on common cadre and were never members of earlier Time Keepers cadre - So far as those Time Keepers who were serving in Time Keeping Department on and before date of implementation of Presidential Order and who continue to serve in same department are concerned, department should give them an option if they are proposed to be transferred outside that department or department should undertake to make good economic loss which they are likely to suffer on transfer - Such a reading of Presidential Order is permissible on the plain language of the order and saves it from being rendered vulnerable - Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
AHMADI, J.— Special leave granted.
2. The appellants and the writ petitioners are presently serving in the Time Keeping Department of the Naval Dockyard, Bombay, which is under the administrative control of the Vice-Admiral, Flag Officer, Commanding-in-Chief, Western Naval Command, Bombay. In the said department there are several posts of Junior Time Keepers and only two posts of Senior Time Keepers. Since the promotional posts were limited in number there was stagnation at the base level of Junior Time Keepers. With a view to removing this stagnation, the cadre of Time Keepers was sought to be amalgamated with the clerical cadre in the same department. On September 14, 1966, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, wrote a letter to the Chief of Naval Staff on the subject of amalgamation of the Time Keepers cadre with the clerical cadre. The text of the letter reads as under:
"Sir,
I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the merger of the cadre of Time Keepers with the clerical cadre in all Naval establishments. Consequent on this merger, Senior Time Keepers will be redesignated as Upper Division Clerks. The authorised ratio of 1:4 between UDCs and LDCs will be maintained after this merger but where because of the merger and redesignation of Senior Time Keepers as Upper Division Clerks the number of Upper Division Clerks exceeds the authorised ratio, no reversions will be made and the excess vacancies of Upper Division Clerks will be adjusted against vacancies of Upper Division Clerks becoming available by way of increase in establishment, retirement etc.
2. The existing pay of the Time Keepers will be protected and they will continue to draw increments in the new cadre on the due dates.
3. Any subsidiary instructions regarding seniority, promotion etc. will be issued by you.
4. This letter issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance (Defence/Navy) vide their U.O. No. 3161 NA dated August 31, 1966."
A few days later another letter dated December 5,1966 was issued by the office of the Rear Admiral, Western Naval Command, Bombay, on the same subject which reads as under:
"In accordance with the Government of India, Ministry of Defence Letter No. CP(A)/4895/NHQ/8634/D/N-II dated September 14, 1966 the cadre of Time Keepers will be merged with that of LDC/UDC with effect from December 1,1966.
2. This merger is intended only to give promotion to the Time Keepers along with the LDC/UDC. Their duties, terms and conditions of service will remain the same and their hours of work will also continue to be 45 in a week.
3. Consequent upon the issue of this order and in order to distinguish them from the UDC/LDC and UDC(s)/LDC(s) the suffix "T" will be added after their designation. All records and correspondence relating to them should also be indicated by this suffix."
The employees working in the Time Keeping Department were entitled to the benefit of overtime and productivity linked bonus since they were considered to belong to the industrial wing. Lower Division Clerks and Upper Division Clerks belonging to the clerical cadre who were working in different administrative offices of the Naval Dockyard were not entitled to this benefit. Therefore, when one Thoppil Ramakrishnan was transferred in August 1980 as UDC(T) in the Spare Parts Distribution Centre, he challenged his transfer by filing a Writ Petition No. 1065 of 1980 in the High Court of Bombay on the ground that since he was appointed as Junior Time Keeper in 1953 and was promoted as UDC(T) in 1967 he belonged to a special cadre and could not be transferred to the general cadre as that would entail loss of the benefit of overtime and productivity linked bonus. His petition was allowed by the High Court by the judgment and order dated March 1, 1984. The High Court, treating the letter of December 5, 1966 as clarificatory, concluded that the merger was intended for the sole purpose of making available to the Time Keepers avenues o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
