Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.   1921-1922    OF  2010   

S.K. RATTAN                                    Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                           Respondent(s)

J U D G E M E N T

H.L. GOKHALE, J.:

Leave granted.  

2. These  appeals  by  special  leave  seeks  to  

challenge the judgment and order dated 21st May, 2009  

rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court  

in  Writ  Petition  (Civil)  No.2080  of  2003  and  

subsequent  order  dated  31.7.2009  passed  by  that  

Court in Review Petition No.277 of 2009 dismissing  

both of them. The aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil)  

No.2080 of 2003 sought to challenge the judgment and  

order  rendered  by  the  Central  Administrative  

Tribunal on 1st October, 2001 in O.A. No.1436 of 2000

Page 2

2

by  which  the  Original  Application  filed  by  the  

appellant herein was dismissed.  

3. The short facts leading to these appeals are  

this wise. The appellant joined his services as Sub  

Inspector  of  Police  in  the  Central  Bureau  of  

Investigation (“CBI”) in 1964 and was subsequently  

promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in 1966.  

He was eventually promoted to the post of Deputy  

Superintendent of Police in CBI with effect from 18th  

April, 1984.  

4. It  so  transpired  that  Government  of  India  

constituted an Organization, namely, National Crime  

Records  Bureau  (“NCRB”)  by  merging  four  units  of  

Central  Police  Organizations,  including  the  Data  

Section  of  the  Co-ordination  Division  of  CBI.  

Consequent upon this decision, 10 posts of this Data  

Section, including one post of Deputy Superintendent  

of Police, came to be transferred from CBI to NCRB  

on  11.11.1987  with  complete  Inter-state  Crime  

Records. The Data Section of CBI was re-named as  

Crime  Records  Data  Section  in  the  NCRB.  The  

appellant was also transferred in the NCRB in public

Page 3

3

interest  by  Office  Order  dated  12.4.1988.  As  the  

order stated, consequent upon the transfer of the  

Data Section of the Co-ordination Division of CBI to  

NCRB, the services of the appellant were placed at  

the disposal of NCRB on transfer basis and he was  

therefore relieved of his duties from the CBI with  

effect from the afternoon of 12th April, 1988. The  

appellant was not asked whether he wanted to join  

this new organization. However, in pursuance of the  

aforesaid order he joined over there.  

5. When the appellant was transferred to that  

organization his pay, as it was in the CBI, remained  

protected. However, some four years thereafter when  

the pay of Deputy Superintendent of Police in CBI  

was reduced, his pay was also reduced from the pay-

scale  of  Rs.2200-4000/-  to  Rs.  2000-3500/-  with  

effect from 13.4.1992. When the pay-scales of Deputy  

Superintendent of Police were restored, the pay of  

the appellant also came to be restored on 10.6.1996  

and upgraded from Rs. 2000-3500/- to Rs.2200-4000/-  

which  was  equivalent  to  the  post  of  Deputy  

Superintendent of Police at the relevant time. Thus  

far,  there  was  no  difficulty.  It,  however,  so

Page 4

4

transpired that in the year 1996, a batchmate of the  

appellant one Shri T.N. Kapoor, who remained in the  

CBI  and  worked  as  Superintendent  of  Police,  got  

further revision  of pay-scale  of 4100-5300/-  with  

effect from 10.3.1996. Not only that, but a junior  

of  his,  namely,  Shri  Rajendra  Prasad  working  as  

Superintendent of Police in the CBI was also given  

this revised pay-scale with effect from 26.3.1996.  

The appellant was, however, not given this higher  

pay-scale.  

6. The  appellant  was  subsequently  promoted  on  

25.2.1997  to  the  next  post  of  Joint  Assistant  

Director  which  is  equivalent  to  the  post  of  

Superintendent  of  Police  in  the  CBI,  but  he  was  

continued to be given lesser pay in the pay-scale of  

Rs.3000-4500/-. Therefore, he made a representation  

on 17.4.1997 and made some further representations  

in this behalf.  He stated in the representation  

specifically that: “neither I was asked nor I gave  

my option to remain in the NCRB during my entire  

service in the NCRB from 10.4.1988 onwards.”  After  

putting in 8 years of regular service in the rank of  

Superintendent  of  Police  in  the  CBI  he  was  not

Page 5

5

expecting  such  a  reduction  in  his  pay.  The  NCRB  

however rejected his representation after a period  

of two years by its communication dated 2nd August,  

1999. This communication reads as follows:  

“1.  With  reference  to  his  representation  

dated 11.5.99 regarding grant of pay scale of  

Rs.4100-5300/- (pre-revised)  to him  at par  

with the Supdt. Of Police in CBI, Sh. S.K.  

Rattan, JAD is informed that his case was  

taken  up  with  MHA  &  DOPT.  They  have  not  

accepted his contentions and ruled that:

'The General principle is that when  

work is transferred along with staff from one  

Government  Office  to  another  Government  

Office, no terms are required to be offered  

to the transferees and they will cease to be  

the  employees  of  the  former  office  /  

organization. They have to look forward for  

their  career  prospects  in  the  new  

organization.'

2. This issues with the approval of Director,  

NCRB.”

7. The appellant eventually retired from service  

on  3.2.2000  but  preferred  to  challenge  this  

communication dated 2nd August, 1999 by filing the  

above referred Original Application which, as stated  

earlier,  came  to  be  rejected.  So  also  the  writ

Page 6

6

petition and the review petition filed against the  

order of  the Central  Administrative Tribunal,  and  

hence these appeals.  

8. Mr.  P.P.  Rao,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for the appellant submitted that when an  

officer,  governed  by  the  statutory  rules,  is  

transferred  in  public  interest  to  another  

organization along with the post, he continues to be  

governed  by  the  service  rules  applicable  to  him  

prior to his transfer until new service rules are  

framed and made applicable for that new organization  

under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution  

of  India.  He  submitted  that  a  transfer  implies  

continuity of service and therefore it also implies  

same  conditions  of  service  with  respect  to  pay,  

allowances,  promotion  and  seniority.  He  drew  our  

attention to the fact that there are rules framed  

under Article 309 as far as the officers of CBI are  

concerned  and  they  are  called  Special  Police  

Establishment  (Executive  Staff)  Recruitment  Rules,  

1963. The appellant was governed by those rules. No  

separate rules were framed by the NCRB until the  

appellant  retired  from  service.  It  is  after  his

Page 7

7

retirement  that  the  NCRB  framed  rules  governing  

service conditions of the officers of the NCRB which  

are known as National Crimes Records Bureau (Crime  

Records, Administration and Training Division) Joint  

Assistant  Director  Recruitment  Rules,  2000,  with  

effect  from  15.7.2000.  These  rules  prescribed  a  

lower pay to the Joint Assistant Director. However,  

this  was  subsequent  to  the  retirement  of  the  

appellant i.e. 13.2.2000 and the service or the pay  

of  the  appellant  could  not  be  said  to  have  been  

governed by these rules.  

9. The submission of Mr. Rao is that the Central  

Administrative Tribunal as also the High Court have  

ignored these basic principles. The appellant could  

not have been placed and given lesser salary when he  

was transferred to another post and if that was to  

be justified, it would amount to reducing him in  

rank  and  be  violative  of  Article  311  of  the  

Constitution. This is apart from being treated in an  

unfair manner and, therefore, Article 14 would get  

attracted since his batchmates and his juniors who  

remained  in  the  CBI  got  higher  pay-scales.  These  

aspects were ignored by the Central Administrative

Page 8

8

Tribunal.  

10. Mr.  Rao  drew  our  attention  to  the  two  

judgments of this Court, firstly in K. Madhavan and  

Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 566,  

and secondly in State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Gobardhan  

Lal,  (2004)  11  SCC  402.  In  paragraph  21  of  K.  

Madhavan (supra), this Court has observed:

“21.  We  may  examine  the  question  from  a  

different point of view. There is not much  

difference between deputation and transfer.  

Indeed, when a deputationist is permanently  

absorbed in the CBI, he is under the rules  

appointed  on  transfer.  In  other  words.  

deputation may be regarded as a transfer from  

one government department to another. It will  

be  against  all  rules  of  service  

jurisprudence,  if  a  government  servant  

holding a particular post is transferred to  

the same  or an  equivalent post  in another  

government  department,  the  period  of  his  

service in the post before his transfer is  

not taken into consideration in computing his  

seniority  in  the  transferred  post.  The  

transfer  cannot  wipe  out  his  length  of  

service in the post from which he has been  

transferred.  It  has  been  observed  by  this  

Court  that  it  is  a  just  and  wholesome  

principle commonly applied where persons from

Page 9

9

different sources are drafted to serve in a  

new  service  that  their  pre-existing  total  

length of service in the parent department  

should be respected and presented by taking  

the same into account in determining their  

ranking in the new service cadre.”

11. He  also  drew  our  attention  to  the  

observations of this Court in the case of Gobardhan  

Lal (supra), particularly the following observations  

in paragraph 7:

“Even  administrative  guidelines  for  

regulating transfers or containing transfer  

policies at best may afford an opportunity to  

the officer or servant concerned to approach  

their  higher  authorities  for  redress  but  

cannot have the consequence of depriving or  

denying the competent authority to transfer a  

particular  officer/servant to  any place  in  

public interest and as is found necessitated  

by  exigencies  of  service  as  long  as  the  

official status is not affected adversely and  

there  is  no  infraction  of  any  career  

prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and  

secured emoluments.”

12. Mr.  Radhakrishnan,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing  for  the  respondents  submitted  that  the  

appellant did not make any grievance until 1998.  He

Page 10

10

drew our attention to the observation of the Central  

Administrative Tribunal  in its  judgment where  the  

Tribunal has observed that the service conditions of  

the two organizations could not be compared merely  

because the applicant’s pay was on par with other  

officers in the CBI at an earlier date. It cannot  

also assist him in giving the parity in pay-scales,  

especially  after  he  and  his  post  have  been  

transferred by executive order of the President to  

another  organization.  Mr.  Radhakrishnan  drew  our  

attention  to  the  reply  which  was  filed  by  the  

respondents in the Central Administrative Tribunal  

wherein  it  is  stated  that  the  Superintendent  of  

Police in CBI and Joint Assistant Directors in NCRB  

are  posts  in  two  different  organizations  and  are  

completely different from each other in respect of  

the duties and responsibilities. He submitted that  

the appellant ceased to be an employee of the CBI  

with effect from 12.4.1988, and he is governed under  

different recruitment rules and service conditions.  

It  is  further  submitted  by  Mr.  Radhakrishnan,  

learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  that  all  

administrative orders are issued in the name of the  

President of India and after the entire Data Section

Page 11

11

was  transferred  to  NCRB  and  the  appellant  having  

joined  over  there,  he  cannot  subsequently  seek  a  

parity with his colleagues in the CBI.  

13. We  have  noted  the  submissions  of  both  the  

learned counsel. It is very difficult to accept the  

submissions canvassed on behalf of the respondents  

as  also  the  reasoning  given  by  the  Central  

Administrative Tribunal and the High Court for the  

simple reason that until the appellant retired from  

his service, no separate service rules were framed  

for  the  officers  in  the  NCRB.  The  appellant  

continued to be governed by the rules framed for the  

officers of the CBI. When he was transferred from  

the  CBI  to  NCRB  he  had  no  option  but  to  join  

wherever  he  is  placed.  Having  joined  over  there,  

there was no occasion for him to protest until 1996-

97 when he came to know that his salary was lesser  

as compared to his colleagues of the same batch in  

the  CBI.  It  is  at  that  stage  that  he  made  a  

representation  and  the  representation  having  been  

rejected,  he  had  no  option  but  to  approach  the  

Central  Administrative  Tribunal.  The  Central  

Administrative  Tribunal  has  ignored  the  basic

Page 12

12

principles that where an employee is transferred to  

another organization, although he has to join over  

there, he cannot be made to suffer in his service  

conditions as well as in continuity of his service  

without  framing  rules  under  Article  309  of  the  

Constitution. It would amount to discrimination for  

no justifiable reasons.

14. We may as well, however, add that the NCRB  

itself had made a representation before the Fifth  

Central Pay Commission which was considering the pay  

revision,  that  injustice  had  been  done  to  the  

officers of the NCRB but that is a separate issue.  

As far as the appellant is concerned, we look at it  

as his individual case and inasmuch as a wrong has  

been done to him, it is required to be corrected.  

The  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  and  the  High  

Court have failed in doing so.  

15. In the circumstances, we allow these appeals,  

set  aside  both  the  orders  of  the  Central  

Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court  

and allow the Original Application No.1436 of 2000  

filed by the appellant. We direct that his pay will

Page 13

13

be appropriately corrected as sought by him and his  

pension  and  other  service  benefits  will  also  be  

corrected on that basis. We expect the respondents  

Central Government to clear the arrears within three  

months  hereafter.  There  will  however  not  be  any  

order as to costs.

 ........................J

   (H.L. GOKHALE)

   ........................J New Delhi;     (J. CHELAMESWAR) November 28, 2013.