Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
SHANKAR PANDURANG JADHAV AND ORS. ETC>
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VICE-ADMIRAL, FLAG OFFICER, COMMANDING-IN-CHIEFAND ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT05/02/1991
BENCH:
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
BENCH:
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
RAMASWAMI, V. (J) II
FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)
CITATION:
1991 SCR (1) 219 1991 SCC (2) 209
JT 1991 (1) 301 1991 SCALE (1)123
ACT:
Service and Labour Law: Transfer-Naval Dockyard-Time
Keepers Cadre-Entitled to benefits of over-time and
productivity linked bonus-Merger with clerical cadre- To
provide avenues of promotion-Transfer to other ministerial
departments entailing loss of benefit of over-time and
bonus-Transfer resisted-Held that employees who were serving
the Time Keeping Department before the merger order not to
be transferred without their consent-Those joining after the
merger order have no right to resist transfer.
Service law-Presidential order merging Time Keepers
Cadre with Clerical Cadre-Subsequent Order issued by the
Western Naval Command-Inconsistency if any to be ignored as
it could not alter or modify the Presidential Order-To be
read harmoniously with the President Order.
HEADNOTE:
The appellants and Writ Petitioners are serving the
Time Keeping Department of the Naval Dockyard, Bombay under
the control of the Western Naval Command. With a view to
removing the stagnation in the cadre of Time Keepers for
lack of promotion avenues, the Government of India, Ministry
of Defence, by its letter dated 14.9.1966 addressed to the
Chief Naval Staff conveyed the sanction of the President to
the merger of the Time Keepers Cadre with the Clerical Cadre
in all Naval establishments. Consequent to this merger the
Jr. Time Keepers were to be re-designated as Lower Division
Clerks and Sr. Time Keepers as Upper Division Clerks. A few
days thereafter the office of the Rear Admiral, Western
Naval Command, issued a letter dated 5.12.1966 which reads
as under:
".......................
................
2. This merger is intended only to give promotion to
the Time Keepers along with the LDC/UDC. Their duties,
terms and conditions
220
of Services will remain the same and their hours of work
will also continue to be 45 in a week.
3. Consequent upon the issue of this order and in order
to distinguish them from the UDC/LDC and UDC(s)/LDC(s) the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
suffix "T" will be added after their designation.
As per their conditions of service the employees
serving in the Time keeping Department were entitled to the
benefit of over-time and productivity-linked bonus but those
belonging to the clerical cadre working in the
Administrative Offices of the Dockyard were not entitled to
these benefits.
One Thoppil Ramakrishnan on being transferred in August
1980 as UDC(T) in the Spare Parts Distribution Centre,
challenged his transfer by a Writ Petition in the High Court
of Bombay wherein he contended that as he was initially
appointed Jr. Time Keeper and promoted as UDC(T) in 1967 he
belonged to a special cadre and could not be transferred to
the general cadre as that would entail loss of benefit of
over-time and bonus. The High Court treating the letter
dated 5th December, 1966 as merely clarificatory, held that
there was no complete merger of the two cadres and on the
statement of the counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner will not claim the benefit of promotion in the
clerical cadre, allowed the writ petition quashing the
transfer order.
Realising the situation created by its letter of 5th
December, 1966 the western Naval Command cancelled the said
letter and consequently inter-se transfer became possible.
Thereafter, some employees in the Time Keeping Department
were transfered by orders dated 17.4.1985 and 5.10.1985.
The affected employees filed a Writ Petitions in the High
Court which were later transfered to the Central
Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the
conclusion that after the cancellation of the Order dated
5.12.1966, the field was held by the Presidential Order
dated 14.9.1966, that under the merger Scheme envisaged by
the said order the employees in the Time Keeping
Department no longer belonged to a separate Cadre and as
such the Authorities were entitled to transfer them to
other ministerial branches. The Petitions were accordingly
dismissed by a common judgment dated 9th October, 1989.
This judgment is assailed by the concerned employees in the
appeals before this court. One Writ Petition has also been
filed by some other
221
employees apprehending similar transfers.
Allowing the appeals partly insofar as they relate to
five employees who belonged to the separate cadre of the
Time Keeping Department at the date of issuance of the
Presidential Order and dismissing the same in respect of the
remaining appellants and also dismissing the Writ Petition,
this Court,
HELD: The letter of 14th September, 1966 clearly refers
to the Presidential sanction "to the merger of the cadre of
Time Keepers with the clerical cadre in all Naval
establishments". Consequent on this merger, the Junior Time
Keepers were to be redesignated as Lower Division Clerks
and the Senior Time Keepers as Upper Division Clerks. There
is nothing in this letter to convey that they were to retain
their identity as Time Keepers.[227E]
The subsequent order of 5th December, 1966 issued by
the Western Naval Command could not alter this Presidential
Order. If that subsequent order was found to be
inconsistent with the Presidential Order, it had to ignored
for the simple reason that the Officers of the Naval
establishment were not competent to alter, very or modify a
Presidential Order. [228B]
It is difficult to understand how those who entered the
Time Keeping Department after the merger order, can refuse
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
to go on transfer on the plea that they would suffer a
financial loss. They can have no right to the post in the
Time Keeping Department. So long as they are there and are
discharging the functions of the Time Keeper, they would be
entitled to the special benefit of over-time and bonus but
on that plea they cannot contend that they are not
transferable to the ministerial posts. We have, therefore,
no hesitation in concludingthat those who joined the Time
Keeping Department after the Presidential Order became
effective, have no right to continue in that department
merely because their transfer would entail economic loss
since they are governed by the merger scheme which had
become operative before their entry in that department.
They were borne on the common cadre and were never members
of the original Time Keepers Cadre. [229G-230B]
So far as those Time Keepers who were serving in the
Time Keeping Department on and before the date of
implementation of the Presidential Order and who continue
to serve in the same department are concerned, the
department should give them an option if they are proposed
to be transferred outside that department or the
depart-
222
ment should undertake to make good the economic loss which
they are likely to suffer on transfer. [230F-G]
The State of Kerala v. M.K. Krishnan Nair & Ors.,
[1973] 1 SCC 552, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil appeal Nos. 552-554
of 1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.1989 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, New Bombay in Transfer
Applications No. 430, 431 and 433 of 1987.
B.K. Mehta, C.P. Pandey, M. Chopra and V.S. Sharma for
the Appellants.
K. Lahiri, Ms. Kitti Kumaramangalam and Ms. Sushma
Suri (NP) for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AHMADI, J. Special leave granted
The appellants and the writ petitioners are presently
serving in the Time Keeping Department of the Naval
Dockyard, Bombay, which is under the administrative control
of the Vice-Admiral, Flag Officer, Commanding-in-chief,
Western Naval Command, Bombay. In the said department there
are several posts of Junior Time Keepers and only two posts
of Senior Time Keepers. Since the promotional posts were
limited in number there was stagnation at the base level of
Junior Time Keepers. With a view to removing this
stagnation, the cadre of Time Keepers was sought to be
amalgamated with the clerical cadre in the same department.
On 14th September, 1966, the Under Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Defence, wrote a letter to
the Chief of Naval Staff on the subject of amalgamation of
the Time Keepers cadre with the clerical cadre. The text of
the letter reads as under:
"Sir,
I am directed to convey the sanction of the
President to the merger of the cadre of time
keepers with the clerical cadre in all Naval
Establishments. Consequent on this merger,
223
Senior Time Keeper will be redesignated as Upper
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
Division Clerks. The authorised ratio of 1:4
between UDCs and LDCs will be maintained after this
merger but where because of the merger and
redesignation of Senior Time Keepers as Upper
Division Clerks the number of Upper Division Clerks
exceeds the authorised ratio, no reservations will
be made and the excess vacancies of Upper Division
Clerks will be adjusted against vacancies of Upper
Division Clerks becoming available by way of
increase in Establishment, retirement, etc.
2. The existing pay of the time keepers will be
protected and they will continue to draw increments
in the new cadre on the due dates:
3. Any subsidiary instructions regarding seniority
promotion etc. will be issued by you.
4.This letter issue with the concurrence of
Ministry of Finance (Defence/Navy) vide their u.o.
no. 3161 NA dated 31.8.1866."
A few days later another letter dated 5th December, 1966
was issued by the office of the Rear Admiral, Western Naval
Command, Bombay, on the same subject which reads as under;
"In accordance with the Govt. of India, Ministry of
Defence letter No. CP(A)/4895/NHQ/8364/D/N-II dated
14th September 1966 the Cadre of Time Keepers will
be merged with that of LDC/UDC with effect from 1st
December, 1966.
2. This merger is intended only to give promotion
to the Time Keepers alongwith the LDC/UDC. Their
duties, terms and conditions of service will
remain the same and their hours of work will also
continue to be 45 in a week.
3. Consequent upon the issue of this order and in
order to distinguish them from the UDC/LDC and
UDC(s)/LDC(s) the suffix "T" will be added after
their designation. All records and correspondence
relating to them should also be indicated by this
suffix".
224
The employees working in the Time Keeping Department were
entitled to the benefit of over-time and productivity linked
bonus since they were considered to belong to the industrial
wing. Lower Division Clerks and Upper Division clerks
belonging to the clerical cadre who were working in
different administrative offices of the Naval Dockyard were
not entitled to this benefit. Therefore, when one Thoppil
Ramakrishnan was transferred in August, 1980 as UDC(T) in
the Spare Parts Distribution Centre, he challenged his
transfer by filing a Writ Petition No. 1065/80 in the High
Court of Bombay on the ground that since he was appointed as
Junior Time keeper in 1953 and was promoted as UDC(T) in
1967 he belonged to a special cadre and could not be
transferred to the general cadre as that would entail loss
of the benefit of over-time and productivity linked bonus.
His petition was allowed by the High Court by the judgement
and order dated 1st March, 1984. The High Court, treating
the letter of 5th December, 1966 as clarificatory, concluded
that the merger was intended for the sole purpose of making
available to the Time Keepers avenues of promotion in the
clerical cadre but their terms and conditions of service
were to remain in tact and it is for that purpose that they
were to be designated by the suffix"T". The High Court,
therefore, held that there was no complete merger of the two
cadres. The High Court, however, realised that Time Keepers
could not be given promotion to more responsible assignments
unless they received the required experience of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
administrative work normally available to Lower Division
Clerks and Upper Division Clerks, but rested content on the
statement made by the counsel for the petitioner that the
pertitioner will not claim the benefit of promotion in the
clerical cadre. On this statement the High Court made the
rule absolute. Against this judgement a Letters Patent
Appeal was filed but without success. Another Writ Petition
No.1066/80 files by Chob Singh Tomar was similarly disposed
of by the same learned Judge on the next day i.e. 2nd March
1984.
Both the above Judgement were mainly based on the
language of the letter of 5th December, 1966. Realising the
difficulty created by the saidletter, the Flag Officer,
Commanding-in-Chief, Western Naval Command, Bombay,
cancelled the said letter by his communication dated 27th
August, 1984. The subsequent communication reads as under:
"1. Ministry of Defence Letter
CP(A)/4895/NHQ/8634/D(N-II) dated 14 Sep. 66 is
reproduced as Annexure I to this order for
information.
225
2.This Headquarters Civilian Establishment Order
Part II of 1966 No.6 dated 05 Dec. 66 and 50/80
dated 23 Aug. 80 are hereby cancelled."
By a subsequent letter dated 20th November, 1984 it was
further directed that the suffix"S" and suffix "T" should
bed removed from all records and the incumbents should be
redesigned as LDCs/UDCs. On the cancellation of the letter
of 5th December, 1966 and the removal of the suffix "T",
what survived was only the merger order of 14th September,
1966. Consequently inter-se transfers from the Time keeping
Department to the various administrative departments of the
Naval Dockyard became possible. Thereupon, R.A. Sawant and
R.D. Jawakar who were working in the Time Keeping Department
were transferred on promotion as UDC by orders dated 17th
April, 1985 and 5th October, 1985 respectively to other
administrative departments of the naval establishment.
These transfers triggered off certain writ petitions in the
High Court of Bombay. On the constitution of the Central
Administrative Tribunal for that area, those writ petitions
were transferred to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance
with law. The Tribunal by its impugned common judgement
dated 9th October, 1989 came to the conclusion that after
the cancellation of the order dated 5th December, 1966 the
field was held by the Presidential Order referred to in the
letter of 14th September, 1966. The Tribunal held that the
employees in the Time Keeping Department no longer belonged
to separate cadre and the authorities were entitled to
transfer them to the other ministerial branches in the Naval
establishment under the Merger Scheme. In regard to the
judgements delivered by the High Court of Bombay on 1st and
2nd March, 1984, it opined that on the cancellation of the
order of 5th December, 1966 those decisions had lost their
force and the question had to be answered solely on the
basis of Presidential Order referred to in the letter of
14th September, 1966. In this view of the matter the
Tribunal dismissed the applications and vacated the interim
orders. It is against the said judgement of the Tribunal
that the aforesaid appeals have been filed.
Certain other employees who apprehended transfer from
the Time Keeping Department to other administrative
departments in the Naval establishment approached this Court
directly by way of a writ petition. Their contention is
identical to the contention raised in the appeals preferred
against the impugned order of the Tribunal. We will,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
therefore, dispose of the appeals as well as the writ
petition by this common judgement.
226
Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel for the appellant-
petitioners contended that the employees working in the Time
Keeping Department of the Naval establishment perform duties
which are distinct from ordinary clerical duties and
therefore they constitute a separate and distinct cadre
to which are attached certain additional monetary benefits,
such as, over-time payment, productivity linked bonus, etc.,
which would be lost to them if they are transferred to
other administrative departments of the naval establishment.
He submitted that since the Junior Time Keepers did not
have sufficient avenues for promotion and were stagnating at
the base leval and the Senior Time Keepers had no
promotional avenue altogether, their grievance was sought to
be redressed by providing them further avenues of promotion
under the Presidential Order, without depriving them of
their identity and special benefits available as belonging
to the industrial wing of the establishment. According to
him the Presidential Order of merger contained in the letter
dated 14th September, 1966 was issued for this limited
purpose only of giving the Time Keepers an opportunity of
career advancement which was available to their counter-part
in the administrative (Non-industrial) departments of the
Naval establishment but it was never intended to deprive
them of the additional monetary benefits to which they were
entitled as belonging to the industrial wing. In other
words according to Mr. Mehta the merger of the Time Keepers’
cadre with the clerical cadre was only notional and limited
to opening avenues for promotion for the former but there
was no actual merger in the sense of the Time Keepers losing
their identity and that is why in the subsequent letter of
5th December, 1966 the department rightly observed that
their duties, terms and conditions of service will remain
the same and their hours of work will continue to be 45 in a
week and they should be distinguished by the use of the
suffix "T" after their designation. The cancellation of the
order of 5th December, 1966 by the subsequent order of 22nd
August, 1984 does not alter the situation contended Mr.
Mehta and, therefore, said he, the Tribunal was in error in
coming to the conclusion that the earlier two decisions of
the Bombay High Court had lost their force. He, therefore,
submitted that the Tribunal’s approach was clearly erroneous
and this Court must correct the same.
Mr. Lahiri, the learned counsel for the department
contended that the Presidential Order referred to in the
letter of 14th September, 1966 had merged both the cadres
and the Time Keepers were, therefore, redesignated as Lower
Division Clerks and Upper Division Clerks. He submitted
that there was no indication in the Presidential Order that
these Time Keepers who were redesignated as LDCs/
227
UDCs will continue to constitute a separate cadre and yet be
entitled to promotion in the clerical cadre. He, therefore,
submitted that the subsequent order of 5th December, 1966
was issued on an erroneous reading of the Presidential Order
and when the department realised the mistake after the High
Court’s judgements, it promptly cancelled the said order and
restored the position as on the issuance of Presidential
Order. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal was
right in coming to the conclusion that as the High Court’s
judgements were based on the subsequent order of 5th
December, 1966 and the same was since cancelled, the
judgements no longer held the field and the appellants-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
petitioners were not entitled to the benefit thereof. He
further pointed out that under the Presidential Order the ‘
pay’ of the Time Keepers has been protected and therefore,
they can have no cause to complain but such of those
LDCs/UDCs who are posted in the Time Keeping Department are
allowed to draw overtime wages as well as bonus admissible
under the relevant law. These benefits are attached to the
post and not the individual and the one who is manning the
same is entitled to them and not others. He, therefore,
submitted that this Court should not interfere with the view
taken by the Tribunal and should dismiss these appeals as
well as the writ petition.
We have carefully considered the contentions urged
before us by the learned counsel for the contesting parties.
The letter of 14th September, 1966 clearly refers to the
Presidential sanction"to the merger of the cadre of Time
Keepers with the clerical cadre in all Naval
establishments". Consequent on this merger the Junior Time
Keepers were to be redesignated as Lower Division Clerks and
there Senior Time Keepers as Upper Division Clerks. There
is nothing in this letter to convey that they were to retain
their identity as Time Keepers. The letter further states
that their entry into the clerical cadre should not disturb
the authorised ratio of 1:4 between UDCs and LDCs but where
because of the merger and redesignation of Senior Time
Keepers as UDCs, the numbers of UDCs exceeds the authorised
ratio, there should be no revision but in the excess should
be adjusted against vacancies becoming available by way of
increase in establishment, retirement, etc. Paragraph 2 of
that letter states that the existing pay of the Time Keepers
will be protected and they will continue to draw increments
in the new cadre on the due dates. It is clear from the
above text of the letter of 14th September, 1966 that the
intention was to merge the cadre of Time Keepers with the
clerical cadre and to adjust the imbalance. If any, caused
on account of such merger in a manner so as not to disturb
the authorised ratio. The pay and increments of the Time
Keepers were protected by the said order. There
228
can, therefore, be no doubt that the plain language of the
Presidential Order as reproduced in the letter of 14th
September, 1966, clearly manifests an intention to merge the
existing Time Keepers’ cadre with the clerical cadre, albeit
with a view to opening avenues for promotion for the Time
Keepers. The subsequent order of 5th December, 1966 issued
by the Western naval Command could not alter this
Presidential Order. If that subsequent order was found to
be inconsistent with the Presidential Order, it had to be
ignored for the simple reason that the officers of the Naval
establishment were not competent to alter, vary or modify a
Presidential Order. The interpretation placed on that
subsequent letter by the Bombay High Court in the judgements
delivered on 1st and 2nd March, 1984 does give the
impression that the High Court thought that there was no
complete merger and the personnel meaning the Time Keeping
Department retained their identity and were, therefore,
entitled to the additional benefits of over-time and
productivity linked bonus. After the judgements were
delivered the department instead of approaching this Court
thought it wise to undo the mischief by cancelling the
subsequent order of 5th December, 1966 which was the source
of trouble. Since the conclusion reached by the High Court
was based on the language of the subsequent order of 5th
December, 1966, the Tribunal was not bound to follow the
same on the cancellation of that order. We may also state,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
with respect to the learned judge in the High Court, that we
find it difficult to persuade ourselves to his point of view
for diverse reasons. Firstly, the plain language of the
text of the Presidential Order manifests a clear intention
to merge the cadre of Time Keepers with the clerical cadre
on the establishment. Secondly, the subsequent order of 5th
December, 1966 had to be read consistently with the
Presidential Order as to fulfil the purpose or objective and
not to impede or stifle it. Thirdly, even if the subsequent
order was found to be inconsistent with the Presidential
Order in certain respects, the inconsistency had to be
ignored for the obvious reason that the officer issuing the
order could not have altered or modified the Presidential
Order and lastly, if there was any confusion caused by the
subsequent order it should have been read harmoniously with
the Presidential order Order so as to advance its objective
or merger of the Time Keepers’ cadre with the clerical
cadre.
In order to appreciate Mr. Mehta’s contention that by
the Presidential Order only a notional merger for the
limited purpose of providing the Time Keepers with
promotional avenues was intended and not actual merger so as
to deprive the Time Keepers of their distinct identity, it
is necessary to realise that the sole purpose of the
exercise
229
indisputably was to make career advancement possible for the
Time Keepers. At the time of issuance of the Presidential
Order there were only two layers in the Time Keeping
Department of the establishment. The base-level which was
fairly large comprised Junior Time Keepers and above them
were Senior Time Keepers. Since there were only two posts
of Senior Times Keepers, the prospects of promotion for
Junior Time Keepers were very dim. As there was no further
promotional avenue for the Senior Times Keepers, the
mobility was restricted and they too suffered on that
account. There was, therefore, large scale stagnation and
with a view to overcoming the same the question of merger of
the Time Keepers’ cadre with the clerical cadre was
examined. On the same being found feasible, the
Presidential Order came to be issued. The High Court
realised that if the Time Keepers do not gather sufficient
exprience of administrative work they would not be able to
handle responsible work at higher levels in the heierarchy
and hence their movement to the ministerial posts is
absolutely necessary. But the High Court resolved this
situation by obtaining a statement from the incumbent that
he would not claim the benefit of promotion to which he may
otherwise be entitled by reason of the merger policy. Would
this advance the policy of merger or fulfil the purpose of
opening avenues of promotion for the Time Keepers? If the
mobility from Time Keepers’ post to the clerical post is
halted on account of the former’s unwillingness to move to
the clerical side to gain experience and equip himself to
discharge higher responsibilities in future merely to retain
the monetary benefit accruing from overtime wages and bonus,
it is difficult to understand how even the limited objective
of providing promotional avenues to Time Keepers would be
satisfied. And it is all the more difficult to understand
how those incumbents who entered the Time Keepers Department
after the Presidential Order became effective can claim that
they have a vested right to continue in the department
because they would suffer a monetary loss if they are
transferred to the clerical posts. The list Annexure C to
the appeals would show that except for those at serial Nos.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
1 to 3, 8 and 12, the rest of the incumbents had either
joined as LDC in the Time Keeping Department after the
Presidential Order became effective or had been transferred
to that department from the other administrative departments
where they were working as LDCs. It is difficult to
understand how those who entered that department after the
merger via the other administrative branches of the
establishment can refuse to go back on the specious plea
that they would suffer a financial loss. They can have no
right to the post in the Time Keeping Department. So long
as they are posted there and are discharging the functions
of the Keeper they would be entitled to overtime wages
230
and bonus but on that plea they cannot contend that they are
not transferable to the ministerial posts on the
establishments.We have,therefore, no hesitation in
concluding that those who joined the Time Keeping Department
after the Presidential Order became effective,either by a
direct posting in that department as LDC or on transfer to
that department,have no right to continue in that
department merely because their would entail economic loss
since they are governed by the merger scheme which
had become operative before their entry in that department.,
They were borne on the common cadreand werenever members of
the earlier Time Keeper’s cadre.
But the case of those Time Keepers who were serving as
such in the Time Keeping Department,such as, the incumbents
at serial Nos.1 to 3, 8 and 12 (S.P.Jadhav,V.S.Khot,P.J.
Rodrigues, B.J.Dhamba and V.S. Shinde), must be viewed
differently. They belonged to a separate cadre of Time
Keepers at the date of the issuance of the Presidential
Order. Their terms and conditions of service couldnot be
altered,varied ormodified to their detriment without giving
them an opportunity to exercise their option. If their
transfer outside the Time Keeping Department becomes
possible by the merger of their cadre with the clerical
cadre but the same entails civil consequences in the form of
loss of overtime wages and bonus, justice demands that they
must be given an option to choose which course is beneficial
to them and if they decide or opt in favour of the status
quo they must be allowed to continue as Time Keepers and
not be transferred outside that department without their
consent, because to do so would render the scheme
vulnerable unless the department agrees to make good the
economic loss suffered on transfer. Therefore,so far as
those Time Keepers who were serving in the Time keeping
Department on and before the date of the implementation of
the Presidential Order and who continue to serve in the same
department are concerned, the department should give them an
option if they are proposed to be transferred outside that
department or the department should undertake to make good
the economic loss which they are likely to suffer on
transfer.Such a reading of the Presidential Order is
permissible on the plain language of theorder and saves it
from being rendered vulnerable.See: The State of Kerala v.
M.K.Krishnan Nair & Ors., [1978] 1 SCC 552 at 571.
In the result we allow the appeals partly insofar as
they concern the aforenamed five persons to the extent
indicated above and dismiss them in respect of the
remaining appellants. Since the writ petitioners
231
are not shown to belong to the category of employees who
were borne on the cadre of Time Keepers and were actually
working in the Time Keeping Department on or before the
issuance of the Presidential Order, their writ petition
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
fails and is dismissed. There will,however, be no order as
to costs in the appeals as well as the writ petition.
Petition & Appeals dismissed
232