Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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