Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Madhusudan Banerjee . on 26 May, 2016
Bench: Prafulla C. Pant, D.Y. Chandrachud
1
REVISED
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 552/2009
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MADHUSUDAN BANERJEE & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With office report)
Date : 26/05/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
(VACATION BENCH)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Yashank Adhyaru,Sr. Adv.
Mr. A.K. Srivastava,Adv.
Ms. Asha Gopalan,Adv.
Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.
Mr. S.A. Haseer,Adv.
Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjan Dwivedi,Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Jain,Adv.
Ms. Abha Jain,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The civil appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(SAPNA BISHT) (JASWINDER KAUR)
Signature Not Verified
SR.P.A. COURT MASTER
(Signed order (with corrections) is placed on the file) Digitally signed by SAPNA BISHT Date: 2016.06.10 16:22:20 IST Reason: 2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.552 OF 2009 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS MADHUSUDAN BANERJEE & ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R This Civil Appeal is directed against the order dated 19th March, 2008 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in WPCT No.664 of 2007, whereby the Writ Petition is dismissed and the order dated 30 th November, 2006 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1205 of 2002 is affirmed.
Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued on 22nd July, 1993 by the appellants for the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'A' in the pay scale of Rs.1150-25-1500/-, in response to which the respondents submitted their applications and got selected. They joined the post of Data Entry Operator in Grade 'A' in the pay scale mentioned above in the year 1993-94. Nine years after their joining, they filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming that they are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200/- from the date of their appointment. The pay scale of 3 Rs.1350-2200/- was admissible to the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'B'. The Tribunal accepted the claim of the respondents and directed that they shall be treated to have been appointed as Data Entry Operator Grade 'B'. However, only notional benefit was directed to be given to the respondents. The appellants challenged the order of the Tribunal before the High Court through a Writ Petition but the same was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the advertisement dated 22nd July, 1993, in response to which the respondents applied was for the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'A' and the pay scale of Rs.1150-25-1500/- which was clearly mentioned in the advertisement. It is further contended that the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'B' is a promotional post and is required to be filled from amongst the employees working as the Data Entry Operators in Grade 'A'. On the other hand on behalf of respondents, it is submitted that vide order dated 11th September, 1990, it was clarified that the post of Data Entry Operators is re-designated as Data Entry Operator Grade 'B'. As such no appointments could have been made to the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'A'. Our attention is specifically drawn to paragraph 3 of the order dated 11th September, 1990 issued by the appellants in which it is mentioned that all existing regularly appointed Data Entry Operators were to be covered by the 4 order as a one time measure.
However, on carefully going through the order dated 11th September, 1990, we find that paragraph 3 relates to the existing appointee Data Entry Operators as on 11th September, 1990 who could have been re-designated as Data Entry Operator Grade 'B'. It is not disputed that the respondents were not in service on that date. They were appointed in the year 1993-94. As such we are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents should be treated to have been appointed on the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'B' in the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200/-.
In Secretary, Department of Personnel & Pension, Public Grievances & Pension & Anr. vs. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao 2015 (3) SCC 653, this Court has held that the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'B' is a promotional post for which there is a requirement of specific experience. As such the respondents cannot be said to have been directly appointed on said Grade. Apart from this, respondents in response to an advertisement for the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'A' in the pay scale of Rs.1150-25-1500/- sought their appointment and with open eyes joined the same. After a long period of nine years, they made a representation claiming that they joined the post under the wrong impression and they have been exploited due to the unemployment by making them to 5 join in the pay scale of Rs.1150-25-1500/- which cannot be accepted.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Secretary, Department of Personnel & Pension, Public Grievances & Pension & Anr. vs. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao 2015 (3) SCC 653 and in the above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this Civil Appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the High Court.
...................J. [PRAFULLA C. PANT] ....................J. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD] NEW DELHI MAY 26, 2016.
6
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 552/2009
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MADHUSUDAN BANERJEE & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With office report)
Date : 26/05/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD (VACATION BENCH) For Appellant(s) Mr. Yashank Adhyaru,Sr. Adv.
Mr. A.K. Srivastava,Adv.
Ms. Asha Gopalan,Adv.
Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.
Mr. S.A. Haseer,Adv.
Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjan Dwivedi,Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Jain,Adv.
Ms. Abha Jain,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The civil appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(SAPNA BISHT) (JASWINDER KAUR)
SR.P.A. COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
7
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.552 OF 2009
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MADHUSUDAN BANERJEE & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
This Civil Appeal is directed against the order dated 19th March, 2008 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in WPCT No.664 of 2007, whereby the Writ Petition is dismissed and the order dated 30 th November, 2006 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1205 of 2002 is affirmed.
Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued on 22nd July, 1993 by the appellants for the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'A' in the pay scale of Rs.1150-25-1500/-, in response to which the respondents submitted their applications and got selected. They joined the post of Data Entry Operator in Grade 'A' in the pay scale mentioned above in the year 1993-94. Nine years after their joining, they filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming that they are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200/- from the date of their appointment. The pay scale of 8 Rs.1350-2200/- was admissible to the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'B'. The Tribunal accepted the claim of the respondents and directed that they shall be treated to have been appointed as Data Entry Operator Grade 'B'. However, only notional benefit was directed to be given to the respondents. The appellants challenged the order of the Tribunal before the High Court through Writ Petition but the same was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the advertisement dated 22nd July, 1993, in response to which the respondents applied was for the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'A' and the pay scale of Rs.1150-25-1500/- which was clearly mentioned in the advertisement. It is further contended that the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'B' is a promotional post and required to be filled from amongst the employees working as the Data Entry Operators in Grade 'A'. On the other hand on behalf of respondents, it is submitted that vide order dated 11th September, 1990, it was clarified that the post of Data Entry Operators is re-designated as Data Entry Operator Grade 'B'. As such no appointments could have been made to the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'A'. Our attention is specifically drawn to paragraph 3 of the order dated 11th September, 1990 issued by the appellants in which it is mentioned that all existing regularly appointed Data Entry Operators were to be covered by the 9 order as one time measure.
However, on carefully going through the order dated 11th September, 1990, we find that paragraph 3 relates to the existing appointee Data Entry Operators as on 11th September, 1990 who could have been re-designated as Data Entry Operator Grade 'B'. It is not disputed that the respondents were not in service on that date. They were appointed in the year 1993-94 as such we are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents should be treated to have been appointed on the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'B' in the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200/-.
In Secretary, Department of Personnel & Pension, Public Grievances & Pension & Anr. vs. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao 2015 (3) SCC 653, this Court has held that the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'B' is a promotional post for which there is requirement of specific experience. As such the respondents cannot be said to have been directly appointed on said Grade. Apart from this, respondents in response to advertisement for the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'A' in the pay scale of Rs.1150-25-1500/- sought their appointment and with open eyes joined the same. After a long period of nine years, they made a representation claiming that they joined the post under the wrong impression and they have been exploited due to the unemployment by making them to 10 join in the pay scale of Rs.1150-25-1500/- which cannot be accepted.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Secretary, Department of Personnel & Pension, Public Grievances & Pension & Anr. vs. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao 2015 (3) SCC 653 and in the above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this Civil Appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the High Court.
...................J. [PRAFULLA C. PANT] ....................J. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD] NEW DELHI MAY 26, 2016.