High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H 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