S.K.RATTAN Vs UNION OF INDIA .
Bench: H.L. GOKHALE,J. CHELAMESWAR
Case number: C.A. No.-001921-001922 / 2010
Diary number: 27247 / 2009
Advocates: D. S. CHAUHAN Vs
SHREEKANT N. TERDAL
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.