Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Supreme Court Holds Inter-University Transferred Employees Not Entitled to Double Benefit on Promotion

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 28 April 2023, Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment Smt. Sasikala Devi. Vs State of Kerala , upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala regarding the fixation of pay for inter-university transferred employees on their promotional post in the transferee University. The appeals in question, Civil Appeal Nos. 8716 and 8717 of 2012, challenged the reversal of a Single Bench judgment by the Division Bench.

The case involved Smt. Sasikala Devi. P, who was initially appointed as Assistant Grade-II in the University of Calicut in 1988. She received subsequent promotions and was eventually transferred to M.G. University in accordance with the applicable guidelines for inter-university transfers. The issue arose when Sasikala applied for an inter-university transfer to Kerala University in 1999. As per the policy, she was placed as the juniormost Assistant Grade-II, the entry-level position, in the transferee University. Her name was later included in the list of eligible Assistant Grade-II employees for promotion to Assistant Grade-I.

However, an audit objection was raised regarding the fixation of Sasikala's pay on the promotional post in the transferee University. The Single Bench of the High Court had allowed her writ petition, but the Division Bench overturned the decision, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

The crux of the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the inter-university transferred employees, who were already drawing a higher salary in their previous University, were entitled to further benefits on promotion. The Court examined the relevant provisions, including Rule 14A of Chapter 4 of the Kerala University First Statutes and Rule 28A of the Kerala Service Rules, 1959.

The Court noted that the transferred employees, like Sasikala, had already received three promotions before their transfer to Kerala University. The salary they received for the higher post in their previous University was protected under the inter-university transfer policy. Consequently, when they were promoted to Assistant Grade-I in the transferee University, their pay was not upgraded.

The appellant argued that the failure to grant promotional benefits would amount to discrimination. However, the Court disagreed, stating that granting such benefits would result in a double benefit for the transferred employees. The employees had already enjoyed the benefits of promotion in their previous University, and to grant them additional benefits in the transferee University would be unjust.

The Court further addressed the issue of recovery of the amount already paid to the retired employees who had benefited from the wrong fixation of pay. While directing that no recovery be made, the Court allowed for the refixing of their pensions based on the emoluments they were entitled to at the time of retirement, in accordance with the rules.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, ruling that the inter-university transferred employees were not entitled to double benefits on promotion. The judgment clarifies the treatment of pay fixation for such employees and provides guidance for future cases involving inter-university transfers.

Smt. Sasikala Devi. Vs State of Kerala

Latest Legal News