Case Note & Summary
The case involves appeals by the Union of India against a common judgment of the Madras High Court confirming orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that set aside a transfer order and quashed amended recruitment rules. The respondent, S. Maadasamy, initially joined the Government of Puducherry as a Craft Instructor in 1975 and was promoted to Joint Chief Inspector of Factories (JCIF) in 2001. His promotion was challenged by another officer, P.S. Krishnamurthy, leading to the government initiating steps to equate the posts of Principal and JCIF. In 2003, the respondent was transferred from JCIF to Principal, Group 'A' (Senior Scale), which was set aside by CAT as mala fide. Subsequently, in 2005, the government issued amended recruitment rules equating the two posts and simultaneously transferred the respondent again to Principal. The respondent challenged both the transfer and the amended rules. CAT quashed the transfer as mala fide and the amended rules as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16. The High Court dismissed the Union's writ petitions. The Supreme Court noted that the challenge to the transfer became infructuous as the respondent had retired, but left open the issue of treatment of the period between transfer and retirement as dies non. Regarding the amended rules, the Court observed that the challenge survived but did not decide on merits, leaving it for appropriate proceedings. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Mala Fide Transfer - Transfer order set aside as mala fide and with oblique motive - The Tribunal and High Court concurrently held that the transfer of the respondent from JCIF to Principal was not in good faith but intended to achieve a different purpose - The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings and disposed of the appeal as infructuous due to respondent's retirement (Paras 3.4-3.5). B) Service Law - Recruitment Rules - Amendment - Arbitrariness - Amended rules equating posts of Principal and JCIF quashed as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - The Tribunal found that the purpose of the amendment was not germane but directed to achieve a different purpose - The High Court confirmed this - The Supreme Court left the issue open for consideration in appropriate proceedings (Paras 4-4.2). C) Service Law - Retirement Benefits - Dies Non - Period between transfer and superannuation treated as dies non - The respondent was paid pensionary benefits treating the period as dies non - The Supreme Court left it open for the respondent to challenge this order before the appropriate forum (Para 3.5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amended recruitment rules equating the post of Principal, Group 'A' (Senior Scale) with that of Joint Chief Inspector of Factories (JCIF) were valid and whether the transfer order based on such rules was lawful.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal challenging the transfer order as infructuous due to respondent's retirement, but left open the issue of treatment of the period between transfer and superannuation as dies non. The appeal challenging the amended recruitment rules was also disposed of without deciding on merits, leaving it open for appropriate proceedings.
Law Points
- Transfer order set aside as mala fide
- Amended recruitment rules quashed as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16
- Challenge to transfer becomes infructuous upon retirement
- Period of transfer treated as dies non
