Supreme Court Sets Aside Tribunal Order on Pay Fixation in Transfer Case Due to Unilateral Transfer Terms. Pay Not Protected as Transfer Involved Technical Resignation and Lower Post Acceptance.

  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose between the Comptroller & Auditor General of India and Farid Sattar regarding the fixation of pay following Sattar's unilateral transfer from the post of Senior Accountant to Accountant. Sattar joined as an Auditor in 1982 and was promoted to Senior Accountant in 1987. In 1990, he sought a mutual transfer, which was not permissible, leading him to apply for a unilateral transfer in 1992, accepting a lower pay scale. His pay was erroneously fixed at a higher rate, which was later corrected by a memorandum directing recovery of excess payment. Sattar challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in his favor, stating that his pay should be protected. The appellants contended that the tribunal erred in applying the Fundamental Rules, arguing that the terms of the unilateral transfer required Sattar to accept a lower pay without protection. The court analyzed the relevant Fundamental Rules and concluded that since the transfer was unilateral and involved a technical resignation, the pay could not be protected. The court found that the tribunal's decision was not sustainable and allowed the appeal, setting aside the tribunal's order without costs.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Pay Fixation - Protection of Pay on Transfer - Fundamental Rules, 1922, Rule 22(1)(a)(2), 22(1)(a)(3) - The court held that the pay of an employee transferred on his own request to a lower post is not protected under the Fundamental Rules, as the transfer was unilateral and involved a technical resignation. The terms of the transfer clearly stated that the employee would rank junior and his pay would be fixed according to the lower post's scale, thus justifying the re-fixation of pay. Held that the tribunal's order was unsustainable (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the pay of the respondent should be protected upon his unilateral transfer to a lower post.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the tribunal's order and confirming the re-fixation of the respondent's pay as per the terms of the unilateral transfer.

Law Points

  • Fundamental Rules
  • pay fixation
  • unilateral transfer
  • reversion
  • technical resignation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2000 LawText (SC) (04) 66

2000-04-07

V.N. Khare, Doraiswamy Rgjil

Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Ors.

Farid Sattar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to pay fixation and recovery of excess payment following a transfer.

Remedy Sought

Respondent sought to protect his pay and prevent recovery of excess payment.

Filing Reason

Dispute over the legality of pay re-fixation after unilateral transfer.

Previous Decisions

Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, allowing his application.

Issues

Whether the pay should be protected upon unilateral transfer Validity of the tribunal's order regarding pay fixation

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the terms of the unilateral transfer required acceptance of lower pay without protection. Respondent contended that the transfer should be governed by Fundamental Rules, allowing for pay protection.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that unilateral transfers do not warrant pay protection under the Fundamental Rules when the employee accepts a lower post and resigns from a higher position.

Judgment Excerpts

The pay of the respondent had to be fixed with reference to the lower pay scale and not with reference to the pay drawn by him in the higher post. The terms and conditions of unilateral transfer are very clear and there is no ambiguity in it.

Procedural History

The respondent filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the Memorandum dated 8.11.1994, which was decided in his favor, leading to the current appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Fundamental Rules: 22(1)(a)(2), 22(1)(a)(3)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses State's Appeal in Corruption Case Due to Invalid Investigation and Sanction. Investigation Lacked Proper Authorization and Sanction Granted by Incompetent Authority Rendered Prosecution Null.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Award in Arbitration Dispute Over Property Sale Agreement — Error of Law Not Established.