Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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