MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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