Summary
The respondent entered service of the State of Mysore in 1935 as instructor of Tailoring in the Department of Public Instruction. In 1949 he went on deputation in the Polytechnic Institute at Devangere. One K. N. Chetty who was far junior to respondent was also sent on deputation to another similar institution in 1949. K. N. Chetty was absorbed from the date he went or deputation in the new post but respondent was not so absorbed. In 1955, for no fault of the respondent, Government passed orders reverting him to his parent department. In 1956, respondent, was again posted on deputation. The intervening period between his reversion and re-posting was treated as leave. On reorganisation of State respondent's services were allotted to the new State of Mysore. The respondent made several representations and stated that he was discriminated against and treated differently from K. N. Chetty who was junior to him in the parent department. The Public Service Commission found that respondent's case was on all fours with that of Chetty and that he deserved similar treatment. The Commission found that the temporary reversion of the respondent lo his parent department was not justified. The Government in 1964 ordered the absorption of the respondent in the Department of Technical Education from the date of the order subject to the conditions that he would not be entitled to the benefit of revision of scales of pay that had been effected in 1957 and 1961 and that he would not be given any more financial benefit or revision of pay or addition increment for his previous service.
The respondent filed a Writ Petition challenging these condition and praying for a direction that he should be absorbed in the Department of Technical Education from the date of his initial appointment in 1949, and granted consequential benefits or the revision of pay scales etc.The appellant opposed the Writ Petition on the grounds that the respondent had no legal right to be absorbed in the Department of Technical, Education with effect from. a particular interior date or to be given the revised pay scales applicable to those borne permanently in the service of that department. Chetty's case was sought to be distinguished on the ground that he was absorbed in the year 1951 as against the respondent's absorption in 1964 and that there was a break in the service of the respondent.The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and issued a direction that absorption of the respondent in the Department of Technical Education be given effect from 1949 when he initially assumed duty on deputation. The High Court also declared that he would be-entitled to all consequential benefits.The appellant in an appeal by Special Leave relied on the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of K. V.Rajalakshmiah Setty v. State of Mysore [1967] 2 S.C.I. 70.Dismissing the appeal,^HELD: In the present case it appears that the State had evolved a principle pursuant to which all the employees who came on deputation from the departments to the Polytechnic excepting the respondent, were absorbed permanently in the Department of Technical Education with effect from the dates on which they came on deputation. Even Chetty who was admittedly junior to the respondent and was identically situated was accorded the same treatment. It is an undisputed fact that 6 other employees who were similarly situated were absorbed from the date on which they initially joined duty after deputation to the Polytechnic. [259 A-C, 260 D]256 There was no justification whatever to depart from this principle of policy in the case of the respondent. His reversion was not ordered owing to any fault on his part.The said reversion could not be treated as a break in service since it was treated as leave, nor did it amount to reduction in rank. 60 F-H]The High Court was therefore, justified in granting the relief, it did to the respondent. 261 Bl'Rajalakshmiah Setty v. State of Mysore, [1967] 2S.C.R. 70, distinguished.See the full content of this document
Extract
State Of Mysore And Anr. VS. H. Srinivasamurthy
PETITIONER: STATE OF MYSORE AND ANR.Vs.RESPONDENT: H. SRINIVASAMURTHYDATE OF JUDGMENT29/01/1976BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGHBENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGHFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZACITATION: 1976 AIR 1104 1976 SCR (3) 256 1976 SCC (1) 817ACT: Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 16-Penalty- Discrimination Civil Service-Departing from Administrative Policy.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 722 of 1968.Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 17th July, 1967 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 989 of 1965.Narayan Nettar and K. R. Nagaraja for the Appellant.Mrs. Shyamla Pappu and Vineet Kumar for the Respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered bySARKARIA, J.-The circumstances leading to this appe...
See the full content of this document