A.FRANCIS Vs MGT.OF METROPOLITAN TRAN.CORP.LTD.
Bench: RANJAN GOGOI,M.Y. EQBAL
Case number: C.A. No.-007692-007692 / 2014
Diary number: 34526 / 2012
Advocates: C. K. SUCHARITA Vs
R. AYYAM PERUMAL
Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7692 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5396 OF 2013)
A. FRANCIS ... APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
THE MANAGEMENT OF METROPOLITAN ... RESPONDENT (S) TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., TAMIL NADU
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. In view of the limited notice issued by this Court on
24th January, 2013, the only issue that has to be decided
in the present appeal is the entitlement of the
appellant – A. Francis to salary in the higher post of
1
Page 2
Assistant Manager wherein he had worked from 28th
February, 2001 till 31st May, 2005.
4. The appellant was initially appointed as a clerk in the
Tamil Nadu State Transport Department whereafter he was
transferred and absorbed in the newly formed Pallavan
Transport Corporation, which Corporation subsequently
came to be known as the Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Ltd., Chennai. He was promoted to the post of ‘Section
Officer’ in the year 1991. As a large number of posts of
Assistant Manager were lying vacant in the Corporation, by
Order dated 28th February, 2001 the appellant was posted as
Assistant Manager In-charge (Public Relations). The
aforesaid order made it clear that the same will not confer
any preferential right for regular promotion and that the
appellant will continue to draw his grade pay in his present
cadre i.e. Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. Well after he had
retired from service with effect from 31st May, 2005, the
appellant moved a Writ Petition before the High Court of
Judicature at Madras claiming, inter alia, the relief of higher
salary of the post of Assistant Manager. The aforesaid Writ
2
Page 3
Petition was allowed by order dated 4th December, 2009.
Aggrieved, the Corporation filed a Letters Patent Appeal
before the High Court. The direction of the learned Single
Judge for payment of salary of the higher post for the period
in question having been reversed in the Letters Patent
Appeal, the appellant is before this Court.
5. We have heard Ms. C.K. Sucharita, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Subramonium Prasad,
learned AAG, appearing for the respondent. We have
carefully considered the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge as well as the appellate Bench of the High Court.
6. Ms. C.K. Sucharita, learned counsel for the appellant
has vehemently contended that having discharged duties in
the post of Assistant Manager, the appellant is entitled to the
pay and emoluments of that office which had been granted
to him by the learned Single Judge. Relying on a decision of
this Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh
vs. Hari Om Sharma & Ors.1, learned counsel has
contended that the Division Bench of the High Court was 1 (1998) 5 SCC 87
3
Page 4
plainly wrong in reversing the direction of the learned Single
Judge. In fact, learned counsel would urge that the ratio of
the decision of this Court in Secretary-cum-Chief
Engineer, Chandigarh (supra) is a complete answer to the
issues arising in the present proceeding.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned
AAG, appearing for the respondent has placed before the
Court the terms of the order dated 28th February 2001 by
which the appellant was allowed to discharge duties in the
post of Assistant Manager. It is pointed out that there was a
specific condition stipulated in the order dated 28th February,
2001 with regard to salary and emoluments, namely, that
the appellant would continue to draw the salary in the lower
cadre i.e. Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. The claim made
with regard to salary of the higher post is, therefore, not
tenable in law. Learned counsel has tried to distinguish the
decision of this Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer,
Chandigarh (supra) by contending that the same must be
understood in the context of the facts of the case.
4
Page 5
8. The order dated 28th February, 2001, by which the
appellant was allowed to discharge duties in the post of
Assistant Manager had made it clear that the appellant
would not be entitled to claim any benefit therefrom
including higher salary and further that he would continue to
draw his salary in the post of Assistant Labour Welfare
Officer. If the above was an express term of the order
allowing him to discharge duties in the higher post, it is
difficult to see as to how the said condition can be
overlooked or ignored. The decision of this Court in
Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh (supra) was
rendered in a situation where the incumbent was promoted
on ad hoc basis to the higher post. The aforesaid decision is
also distinguishable inasmuch as there was no specific
condition in the promotion order which debarred the
incumbent from the salary of the higher post. Such a
condition was incorporated in an undertaking taken from the
employee which was held by this Court to be contrary to
public policy.
5
Page 6
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in
this appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed and the
order dated 29th September, 2011 passed in Writ Appeal
No.1181 of 2010 by the High Court of Judicature at Madras is
affirmed.
…....…………………………J. [RANJAN GOGOI]
.……....………………………J. [M. Y. EQBAL]
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 13, 2014.
6