Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2019 DIGILAW 759 (SC)

Union Of India v. T. K. Das

2019-02-20

ARUN MISHRA, NAVIN SINHA

body2019
ORDER 1. The union of India and others are in appeal before us aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.03.2007 passed in W.P.(S) No.6186/2006 and against judgment and order in Civil Review No.41/2007 decided on 27.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. 2. The matter pertains to a short dispute with respect to the payment of salary for the period between 31.03.2004 to 11.10.2004. 3. The respondent employee-T.K.Das was appointed on 03.09.1992 in the scale of Rs.4500-7000/- and was promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Senior Surveyor from 02.01.1995 in the pay scale of 5000-8000/-. The services of Senior Surveyors used to be utilized for the purpose of duty of Inspector of Works(Mines) by virtue of providing them ad hoc promotions through office orders issued from time to time by the appellants. 4. Ad hoc promotion was given to the respondent on 24.07.1997 for a period of three months up to 23.10.1997. Similar orders issued from time to time on 27.10.1997, 06.05.1998, 16.07.1998, 26.04.1999 and 27.07.1999 by the appellants. 5. The respondent was ordered to continue on the post of Inspector of Works (Mines) up to 31.12.1999. He was given the salary for the post of Inspector of Works (Mines) w.e.f 03.09.1998. Lastly the order of ad hoc promotion was extended up to 31.3.2000 vide order dated 07.01.2000. Thereafter, the respondent was not granted further extension for ad hoc officiation. 6. After the lapse of period of ad hoc officiation on promoted post, the employee was reverted back to the post of Senior Surveyor on 01.04.2000. The respondent filed a representation dated 30.4.2001 as against the withdrawal of ad hoc promotion from 01.04.2000 and reversion to the original post. In the representation he candidly admitted the fact that he was reverted to the original post with effect from 01.04.2000. Thereafter another representation was filed by him on 02.09.2002 as against his reversion in which also he admitted the earlier position that he continued on ad hoc promotion up to 31.3.2000 and he was reverted to his original position in the absence of further extension orders. 7. Thereafter another representation was filed by him on 02.09.2002 as against his reversion in which also he admitted the earlier position that he continued on ad hoc promotion up to 31.3.2000 and he was reverted to his original position in the absence of further extension orders. 7. On 31.07.2003, the respondent filed yet another representation for regularization of his ad hoc promotion, in which he also stated that he was allowed to work as Inspector of Works (Mines) on ad hoc basis from 27.10.1997 to 31.03.2000 and such extension came to an end on 31.3.2000 and he was reverted back to his original post. 8. Thereafter the respondent filed Original Application No.317/2003 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi on 05.11.2003. He prayed for the relief for payment of salary attached to the post of Inspector of Works (Mines) and claimed that he was still rendering the duties of Inspector of Works (Mines). He prayed that the appellants be directed not to reduce the pay scale of the respondent- employee and to pay in the scale of 6500-10500/-. Prayer was also made for regularization of services and further ancillary reliefs. 9. On 04.10.2004, the office order was issued by the Railways. There was redistribution of the railway lines amongst the incumbents. The case of the appellants is that at the time of issuing the order dated 04.10.2004, the respondent was not holding the post of Inspector of Works (Mines). He did not discharge the duties of Inspector of Works (Mines) during the period 31.03.2000 to 04.10.2004. 10. The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application No.317/2003 whereby the appellants were directed to pay the arrears of salary for the period 24.07.1997 calculating the same on the basis of pay scale of Inspector of Works(Mines) then admissible and to pay arrears within two months and in case of default to pay interest at the rate of 12 per annum. 11. Aggrieved thereby, the Writ Petition was preferred in the High Court by the respondent-employee. The same was disposed of with the direction to the appellants to disburse the salary for the period from 31.03.2000 to 11.10.2004 in favour of the respondent-employee. As against this, the appellants herein filed Civil Review which was dismissed. 12. 11. Aggrieved thereby, the Writ Petition was preferred in the High Court by the respondent-employee. The same was disposed of with the direction to the appellants to disburse the salary for the period from 31.03.2000 to 11.10.2004 in favour of the respondent-employee. As against this, the appellants herein filed Civil Review which was dismissed. 12. While deciding the Original Application the Central Administrative Tribunal had recorded categoric finding that the respondent had himself admitted in his representations that he was reverted to the post of Senior Surveyor and these representations, made much subsequent to his reversion to the post of Senior Surveyor did not support the contention that he continued to work as Inspector of Works (Mines). Thus his claim for regularization was also declined. It was observed by the Tribunal that the respondent was entitled to be considered for such regular promotion in his turn. Salary for the period 24.07.1997 till 31.03.2000 was ordered to be paid within two months and in case the payment is not made within two months then that should be paid along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 13. The High Court has called for additional affidavit and has observed that in para 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 it was stated that the claim of the petitioner (respondent herein) for the scale of Rs.6500-10,500/- from 31.03.2000 to 11.10.2004 is false and fabricated and misleading to the Court. However, the High Court observed that there was no material to show that the document dated 04.10.2004 and 11.10.2004 were fabricated documents. It was not the case of the Union of India and others that immediately after the receipt of the intimation dated 12.10.2004 it was complained that the false claim has been made by the respondent-employee. The High Court directed the appellants herein to disburse the salary for the period between 31.03.2000 to 11.10.2004 as payable to Inspector of Works (Mines). The Civil Review filed by the appellants herein was dismissed. Hence the appeals. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after considering the various documents on record, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent-employee has himself admitted in his various representations that he continued on the promoted post only up to 31.03.2000. The Civil Review filed by the appellants herein was dismissed. Hence the appeals. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after considering the various documents on record, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent-employee has himself admitted in his various representations that he continued on the promoted post only up to 31.03.2000. He himself mentioned the fact in the representations dated 02.09.2002 and 31.07.2003 where he candidly admitted that he was not allowed to continue to work on the promoted post after 31.03.2000. The relevant part of representation of 31.07.2003 is extracted hereunder: "Respectfully, I beg to state that I was promoted to the post of I.O.W.(M) on ad hoc basis w.e.f.27.10.97 and continued up to 31.03.2000, but unfortunately my ad hoc promotion was not regularized neither I have been allowed to continue in the said post." 15. Thus it is apparent from the aforesaid admission made by the respondent that the respondent did not discharge the duty of Inspector of Works (Mines) after 31.03.2000. We fail to comprehend as to how the High Court has spinned out a case in favour of employee from the denial made by appellants with respect to the claim of the pay scale. The High Court has also not referred to the findings recorded by the Tribunal based on admission made in the representations made by the respondent in which he himself admitted that he was not allowed to serve on the promoted post on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 01.04.2000. 16. The High Court has relied upon the order dated 04.10.2004 that was issued by the appellants whereby the railway lines were redistributed amongst the then Inspector of Works (Mines). The order of fresh arrangement, obviously does not indicate that it was in the recognition that the respondent was already working in that capacity. Thus the Tribunal was perfectly justified in declining the salary for the period from 01.04.2000 to 11.10.2004. 17. Hence we have no hesitation to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court in the Writ Petition as well as in the Civil Review. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is hereby restored. 18. The appeals are allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.