# ~ " ·~ ' MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE v. H. VENKATARAMANAPPA

- **Citation:** [1978] 3 S.C.R. 721
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-04-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2484 of 1968
- **Bench:** S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, Jaswant Singh, R. S. Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mysore-state-road-transport-corporation-bangalore-v-h-venkataramanappa-7421
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Seniority in and clairn to a post-When there is re-designation of posts in
the integrated structure, claim should be tested with reference to the post previously held and pay scale and the equated post and scale under the new
structurr!.
The respondent \Vas \Vorking under the !\1ysore Transport Department a~ a
Store Keeper in the grade of Rs. 75-5-100.
Pursuant to the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 son1e territories belonging to the existing States of Bombay and
Hyderabad were merged in the State of Mysore and this resulted ~n the tra?sfer of certain employees of Hubli region of Bombay State and Ra1chur section
.~f the Hyderabad State Road Transport department to the
services
of
the
fi.1ysore State Road Transport Department. The grades of pay of the existing
units were lower than the grades of pay governing the incoming
transferred
units which caused considerable discontent among the employees of the existing
units.
Ultimately an Industrial Truce was signed on 10-1-1958 which was to
become effective from 1-4-1957, under which the scales of pay
attaching to
different posts were revised irrespective of the transport service the incumbents
of those posts had come.
On 8-3-1958 the State Government on a considcration of several factors, published a fresh equation of posts with corresponding
scales of pay.
In this ne\V dispensation, the post held by the respondent
i.e.
Store Keeper i1_1 the scale of 75-5-100 came to be equate:l with that of an
Assistant Store-Keeper in the scale of Rs. 92-8-140-10-180.
The
respondent
gave his option to te nc\v scales from 1-4-1957 and therefore his pay was
fixed @ Rs. 132/- in the scale of Rs. 92-180.
Thereafter, he \Vas temporarily
promoted as Store Keeper in the grade of Rs. 124-220 and reverted as Junior
As~istnnt and \Vas again temporarily promoted as Store Keeper.
A writ petition filed by the respondent claiming seniority as Assistant Store Keeper under
the new equation over certain others were dismissed in 1961. The respondent
then filed a \\Tit petition that he may be put in the scale of Store Keeper w.c.f.
1-4-1957 by virtue of the fact that the post ·which he held was designated as
··store-Keeper'' prior to the Industrial truce.
The Writ Petition failed before
a single Judge but was allov;'ed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High
Court.
Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court
Per Fazrd Ali J. (On b.?h&lf of Jasv;'ant Singh and '1i1nself)
BD·
E:
F
'
HEJ_.D: 1. The High Court over~looked nvo important facts: (1) that the
post of Store Keeper at the time of the industrial truce did not carry the same
G.
scale as the post of Store Keeper under the new dispensation which came into
existence on 26-6-19 58 nor was this new post contemplated at the time \;i,rhen
-.
the industrial tru~e \Vas signed which was six months before this event; (2) that
the. respon_dcnt himself has accepted the terms of the circular giving him
the
option ana had chosen to opt for the new scheme as a result of which he \Vas
given the scale of Rs. 92-1_80 and his salary fixed @ Rs. 132/. p.n1.
[724 F-GJ
(b) !he grievance of the respondent, if any, \Vas
purely
illusory. The
H.
substantive post held by the respondent \Vas below the post of Store Keeper and
until he had by regular promotion reached the higher post he could not cl;im
to be appointed to the new post of Store Keeper which carried a higher scale,
722
SUPREME COURT l\EPORTS
(1978] 3 S.C.R.
A
namely Rs. 124-220. The mere fact that the respondent had officiated on the
post of Store Keeper in a purely temporary capacity would not clothe him with
a right _to the post of Store Keeper. In fact, the previous writ petition filed by
the respondent was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the respondent could not claim any seniority to the post of Store Keeper.
In these
circumstances, therefore, neither in law nor according to rules could the respon·
dent be entitled to be appointed permanently to the post of Store Keeper.
[724 G-H. 725 A)
18
( c) The

## Text

I
...
~
\
~
..,
'·
~---
~,
"
•
•
~
"
·~
'
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
BANGALORE
v.
H. VENKATARAMANAPPA
April 25, 1978
721
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JASWANT SINGH AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.]
Seniority in and clairn to a post-When there is re-designation of posts in
the integrated structure, claim should be tested with reference to the post previously held and pay scale and the equated post and scale under the new
structurr!.
The respondent \Vas \Vorking under the !\1ysore Transport Department a~ a
Store Keeper in the grade of Rs. 75-5-100.
Pursuant to the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 son1e territories belonging to the existing States of Bombay and
Hyderabad were merged in the State of Mysore and this resulted ~n the tra?sfer of certain employees of Hubli region of Bombay State and Ra1chur section
.~f the Hyderabad State Road Transport department to the
services
of
the
fi.1ysore State Road Transport Department. The grades of pay of the existing
units were lower than the grades of pay governing the incoming
transferred
units which caused considerable discontent among the employees of the existing
units.
Ultimately an Industrial Truce was signed on 10-1-1958 which was to
become effective from 1-4-1957, under which the scales of pay
attaching to
different posts were revised irrespective of the transport service the incumbents
of those posts had come.
On 8-3-1958 the State Government on a considcration of several factors, published a fresh equation of posts with corresponding
scales of pay.
In this ne\V dispensation, the post held by the respondent
i.e.
Store Keeper i1_1 the scale of 75-5-100 came to be equate:l with that of an
Assistant Store-Keeper in the scale of Rs. 92-8-140-10-180.
The
respondent
gave his option to te nc\v scales from 1-4-1957 and therefore his pay was
fixed @ Rs. 132/- in the scale of Rs. 92-180.
Thereafter, he \Vas temporarily
promoted as Store Keeper in the grade of Rs. 124-220 and reverted as Junior
As~istnnt and \Vas again temporarily promoted as Store Keeper.
A writ petition filed by the respondent claiming seniority as Assistant Store Keeper under
the new equation over certain others were dismissed in 1961. The respondent
then filed a \\Tit petition that he may be put in the scale of Store Keeper w.c.f.
1-4-1957 by virtue of the fact that the post ·which he held was designated as
··store-Keeper'' prior to the Industrial truce.
The Writ Petition failed before
a single Judge but was allov;'ed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High
Court.
Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court
Per Fazrd Ali J. (On b.?h&lf of Jasv;'ant Singh and '1i1nself)
BD·
E:
F
'
HEJ_.D: 1. The High Court over~looked nvo important facts: (1) that the
post of Store Keeper at the time of the industrial truce did not carry the same
G.
scale as the post of Store Keeper under the new dispensation which came into
existence on 26-6-19 58 nor was this new post contemplated at the time \;i,rhen
-.
the industrial tru~e \Vas signed which was six months before this event; (2) that
the. respon_dcnt himself has accepted the terms of the circular giving him
the
option ana had chosen to opt for the new scheme as a result of which he \Vas
given the scale of Rs. 92-1_80 and his salary fixed @ Rs. 132/. p.n1.
[724 F-GJ
(b) !he grievance of the respondent, if any, \Vas
purely
illusory. The
H.
substantive post held by the respondent \Vas below the post of Store Keeper and
until he had by regular promotion reached the higher post he could not cl;im
to be appointed to the new post of Store Keeper which carried a higher scale,
722
SUPREME COURT l\EPORTS
(1978] 3 S.C.R.
A
namely Rs. 124-220. The mere fact that the respondent had officiated on the
post of Store Keeper in a purely temporary capacity would not clothe him with
a right _to the post of Store Keeper. In fact, the previous writ petition filed by
the respondent was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the respondent could not claim any seniority to the post of Store Keeper.
In these
circumstances, therefore, neither in law nor according to rules could the respon·
dent be entitled to be appointed permanently to the post of Store Keeper.
[724 G-H. 725 A)
18
( c) The respondent could not claim the scale
of the
post
which
was
D
E
F
G
actually held by him after he had exercised his option and in this regard his
equivalent post would be that of an Assistant Store Keeper or a Senior Assistant. The post of a Store Keeper being a higher one could not be given to the
respondent until he earned it in due course of his promotion. [725 B-C]
Per Pathak J .• (Concurring).
1. (a) The High Court has omitted to note that in considering the claim
of the respondent to a particular grade of pay, the tenns of the Industrial
Truce have perforce to be applied in the light of the equation of posts.
The
equation of posts effected under the States Reorganisation Act
constitutes
a
fundamental feature of the employment structure in the Mysore State
Road
Transport Department. The equation of posts was necessitated by the coming
together into one department of employees from different
transport
services
hailing from different regions and previously operating under different Governments.
Both the revised grade of pay set forth in the Industrial Truce and the
newly determined equation of posts were inspired by the need to harmonise the
terms and conditions of service between employees drawn from the
different
units. r127 C-D]
(b) The High Court erred in considering the terms of the Industrial Truce
only. The High Court should have first determined what was the equated post
in the integrated structure which corresponded to the post of Store Keeper in
the Bangalore Transport Service held by the respondent.
Having decided what
was the equated post in the integrated structure, the High Court should
then
have discovered what '~'as the .so;;;ale of pay attaching to thJt rost. That is the
scale of pay by \Vhich alone the respondent can Jay claim. [727 D-E]
(c) In as much as the post of Store Keeper in the
Bangalore
Transport
Service with the grade of Rs. 75-5-100 stands equated with the post of Assistant
Store Keeper with the grade of Rs. 92-8-140-10-180, it is the latter post and the
grade of pay to which the respondent is entitled with effect from April I, 1957.
His claim that he should all along be treated as holding the
post
of store
keeper in a substantive capacity, and to be paid, therefore, on
that basis
is
'\Vithout substance. [727 E-F]
CIVIL APPElLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No.
2484
of
1968.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated
22-3-1968 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1221 ()f
1965.
S. V. Gupte, Attorney General and J. Ramamurthi for the Appellant.
R. B. Datar and (Miss) Farhat Qadri for the Respondent.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
I'AZAL Au, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 22nd March, 1968 and
:U
arises in the following circumstances.
The appellant was an employee of the Bangalore Transport Company and entered service as far back as 1944. On 28th September,
---· f
•
•
-~
•'
•
•
-,~'
M.S.R.T.C. BANGALORE v. VENKATARAMANAPPA (Fazal AU, J.) 72 3
1956 the Bangalore Transport Service Act was passed by which the
Bangalore Transport Company was taken over by the Government.
Nearly a month later, that is on !st October,
1956,
the Company
became a department of the Government and at that time the respondent was working as Junior Assistant in the grade of Rs. 75-5-100.
On th" reorganisation of the States on 1st November, 1956 various
employees frcm other regions were transferred to the Mysore Road
Transi;ort Corporation and various unit_s were amalgamated with the
Myrnre Government Transport Department. In view of the new dispensation it became necessary to bring about a radical change in the
pay structure of the employees. Ultimately a settlement was arrived at
and an industrial truce was signed on 10th January, 1958 which was
to become effective from 1st April, 1957 and
the
respondent was
placed in the grade of Rs. 92-8-180. At this time the designation
of the post of the respondent was that of a Store Keeper. On the 8th
March, 1958 the State Government after a consideration of a
11rge
number of factors published a fresh equation of posts with corresponding scales of pay.
In this new dispensation the post held by the
responJent came to be equated with that of an Assistant Store Keeper.
On 26th June, 1958 the Mysore Government Road Transport 'Jepartment hereinafter referred to as M.G.R.T.D. issued option forms
to the employees to opt for the new scales if they so like with effect
from 1st April, 1957.
Jn consequence of this arrangement a circular No. 12 of 58 dated 26th June, 1958 was issued which ml'Y be
extracted thus :-
"As per Clause 7 of the Industrial Truce signed on 10th
January, 1958, all employees shall have the option to come
on to the new pay scales or to remain on their present pay
scales with effect from !st April, 1957.
Unit Heads are therefore instructed to inform all the empioyees to declare their option on the basis of the provisional
eouation of posts by executing the printing forms sent herewith.
In case any changes are made in the final equation,
the affected persons will be given the right to revise their
option if they find that they arc adversely affected by the
changes made.
'
Upon the staff exercising the option the Unit Heads of
Hubli, Belgaum, Bijapur and Raichur will arrange to rcfix
the salaries of the staff in the categories mentioned in Circular Letter No. 8 of 1958. Jn the case of staff of B.T.S.
and Bangalore Divisions, the Unit Heads will arrange to
refix the pay of all staff with wcightage and give effect to
these from !st July, 1958.
The arrears which will be due
to staff on account of the refixation of pay with weightage
in the case of Bangalore & B.T.S. Divisions and fixation of
pay in the case ol' those in the categories of Ex. Hyderabad
and Ex. B.S.R.T.C. mentioned in Circular 8 of 1958 will
pend finalisation of equation of posts.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1978] 3 S.C.R.
A
All payments made will be provisional and snbject to the
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
necessary :adjustments on the finalisation of equation 'of
post~."
. It is not disputed that the respondent chose to abide by this circular
and exercised option in favour of the new scale and accordingly his
pay was fixed at Rs. 132/- in_ the scale of Rs. 92-180. Therefafter,
the respondent was temporanly promoted as Store Keeper and was
revertet.I as Junior Assistant and was again temporarily promoted as
Sten: Keeper.
On !st August, 1961 the appellant corporation came
into existence and on 12th December, 1961 a petition filed by the
respondent claiming seniority as Assistant Store
Keeper under the
new equation over certain others was dismissed. Two years thereafter
the respondent filed a petition in the High Court of Karnataka praying
that he may be put in the scale of Store Keeper with
effect from
1-4-1957 and a writ of mandamus be issued for enforcing the terms
of the industrial truce regarding the scale of the respon'dent.
The
writ perition failed before the Single Judge but was allowed by the
Division Bench which issued the writ as prayed for.
The State moved
the High Court for grant cf a certificate of fitness for leave to appeal
to this C..ourt which having been refused the appellant got special leave
from this Court and hence this appeal.
The short point contended by the Attorney General was that in the
new dispensation the post of Assistant Store Keeper was equivalent ta
the post of Store Keeper which was in existence at the time when the
industrial truce was entered into and, therefore, the respondent could
have no grievance if he was given the equivalent post and scale particufarly when he chose to opt for the new scale under the new dispensation.
The Division Bench of the High Court appears !O have
gone on the bare description of the post held by the respondent at
the time of the industrial truce rather than the substance of it.
The
High Court thought that if the respondent was a Store Keeper until the
industrial truce he ·should have been appointed as Store Keeper even
under the new dispensation. In coming to this finding the High Court
seems to have overlooked two important facts : (1) that the post of
Store Keeper at the time of the industrial truce did not carry the same
scale as the post of Store Keeper under the new dispensation which
came into existence on 26th June, 1958, nor was this new post contemplated at the time when the industrial truce was signed which was six
months before this event, (2) that the respondent himself had accepted
the terms of the circular extracted above and had chosen to opt for
the new scheme as a result of which he was given
the scale
of
Rs. 92-180 and his salary was fixed at Rs. 132.00 p.m.
Thus the
grievance of the respondent, if any, was purely illusory.
The post
substantive post held by the reSμondent was below the post of Store
Keeper and until he had by regular promotion reached the higher oost
he could not claim to be appointed to the new pos1. of Store Keeper
which carried a higher scale, namely, Rs. 124-220. The mere fact
that the respondent had officiated on the post of Store Keeper in a
purely temporary capacity would not clothe him with a right to the
post of Store Keeper. In fact, the previous writ petition filed by the
f'
•
••
•
•
•
-. '
'
•
;•
~
' • --
_,
'
"
'
•
M.S.R.T.C. BANGALORE v. VENKATARAMANAPPA (Pathak, J.) 725
respondent was dismissed by the Higli Court on the ground tha! the
A
respo1'dent could not claim J!OY seniority to the post of Store Keepe~.
In these circun1stances, therefore, neither in Jaw
nor
according to
rules could the respondent be entitled to be appointed permanwtly to
the post of Store Keeper.
Mr. Datar appearing for the respondent
submitted that since under the industrial truce the post of Store Keeper
was created and given to the respondent he must be deemed to have
been duly promoted to the post of Store Keeper in the new dispensaB
tion.
This argument however is based on a serious misconception of
the previous history and the facts mentioned above.
The respondent
could not claim the scale of the post which was actually held by him
after he had exercised his option and in this regard his equivalent post
would be that of an Assistant Store Keeper or "' Senior Assistant. The
post of a Store Keeper being a higher one could not be given to the
respondent until he earned it in due course of his promotion. We do
C
not, therefore, find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent.
It was secondly urged by counsel for the respondent thet even
tl10ugh he was officiating in a temporary capacity as Store Keeper he
was not given the same salary as admissible to Store Keeper during
the period of his officiation. No such plea appears to have been taken
by the appellant either in the High Court or in his petition fo; special
leave in this Court.
Moreover, the Attorney General showed us a
chart of the pay drawn by the respondent which shows that he did
get the full pay of a Store Keeper while he was temporarily promoted
as such' For these re!lsons this contention is also overruled.
For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed and the order
of the High Court dated 22nd March, 1968 is set aside and the writ
petition filed by the respondent in the High Court is dismi»cd.
Tn
view of the order, granting special leave costs are to be paid by the
appellants.
PATHAK, J.-I agree that the appeal should be allowed. ·The
respondent joined as Assistant Store Keeper in the Bangalore Transport Company in 1944.
In 1950, he was promoted to the post of
Store Keeper in the grade of Rs. 75-5-100. Some years later on
October 1, 1956, the undertaking of the Bangalore Transport Company was taken over by the Mysore State Government and operated as
the Bangalore Transport Service.
The respondent became a Store
Kce~er in the employment of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department by virtue of Section 8 of the Bangalore Road TransPort Service Act, 1956 on the same terms and conditions of service
as enjoyed by him before.
On November 1, 1956, pursuant to the
States Reorganisation Act, 1956 some
territories belonging to the
existing States of Bombay and Hydrabad were merged in lhe State of
Mysore. In consequence, with effect from January 1, 1957 certain employees of the Hubli region of the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation and of the Raichur Section of the Hyderabad Government
Road Transport Department were transferred to the service of the
Mysore Government Road Transport Department.
The grades ot
pay of the existing units were lower than the grades of pay governing
])
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
726
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1978] 3 S.C.R.
the incoming transferred units, and apparently there was considerable
d1scom~nt a.mong the employees of the existing units. Ultimately, an
Industnal lruce was reached on January l, 1958, under which the
scales of pay attaching to different posts were revised irrespective of the
transport service from which the incumbents of those posts had tcme.
A Store Keeper and a Senior Assistant were given the grade Rs. 1248-140-10-220, and a Junior Assistant was given
the
grade
Rs. 92-8-140-10-180. It may be mentioned
that a
Junior
Assistant attached to the Store Section is described as an Assistant
Store Keeper.
The scales were to take effect from April I, ~957.
Clause 7 of the Truce declared that "al) employees
shall nave the
option to come on to the new pay scales or to remain on their present
pay scales, with effect from 1-4-1957."
Concurrently, proceedings
wer2 also under way for the equation of posts with a view to completing the proceis of integration of the transport employees
under
t!Je States Reorganisation Act.
The final equation of posts was published on March 8, 1958, and the employees were informed that tne
option was to be exercised on the basis of this equation. According
to the equation, the post of Store Keeper in the Bangalore Transport
Service with the grade Rs. 75-5-100 stood equated with the new
post of As.;istant Store Keeper with the grade Rs. 92-8-140-10180· It is relevant to note that this was the grade attaching to the
post of Assistant Store Keeper in the Bombay State Road Transport
Corporation. Plainly, the post of Store Keeper held by the respondent
in the Bangalore Transport Service in the
grade
Rs. 75-5-100
stoo,{ equated with the post of Assistant Store Keeper (i.e. Junior
Assistant) with the grade Rs. 92-8-140-10-180.
On June 26, 1958, the Mysore
Government Road
Transport
Department issued a circular letter to all employees, pursuant to clause
7 of the Industrial Truce, declaring that they had the option to come
on to the new pay scales or to remain on their present pay scales with
effect from April l, 1957.
Reference was made to the equation of
posts which had already been effected. It was in this context that the
respondent
exercised his option
on
September
8,
1958,
and
having regard to the terms in which the option was expressed, the
only inference which can be reasonably drawn is that he upted for
the new scales of pay, and on the basis of the equation of
post~.
That necessarily implie~ that he accepted the scale of pay attaching to
the corresponding equated post of Assistant Store Keeper.
It may be ·
mentioned that snbsequently an order dated October 4, 1958 was
issued by the Mysore Road Transport Department promoting the
petitioner, who was described therein as an Assistant Store K;:eper,
+emp0rarily to officiate as Store Keeper on the pay scale attaching to
tbt post.
On January 6, 1959. he was reverted to his substantive
post '1f Assistant Store Keeper.
On March 3, 1959, he was again
te!I'porarily promoted to the post of Store Keeper.
On August I, 1961, the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation
was brought into existence and the existing transport services forming
par: of the Mysore Road Transport Department were absorbed
as
transport services of the Corporation. The respondent was aggrieved
by the pay granted to him. He claimed the higher pay scale attached
•
I . ....__, -·
--' -
•
. ...,
. ..._, '
•
•
•
•
M.s.R.T.C. BANGALORE V, VENKATARAMANAPPA (Pathak, J,) 727
to the post of Store Keeper. The claim was repelled on the ground that
the respondent held the post of Assistant Store Keeper on a substantive basis and not the post of Store Keeper. He filed a writ petition
in the High Court of Mysore contending that he held the post of
Store Keeper substantively and he should be paid the higher pay scale
attaching to that post The writ petition was allowed by the
High
Court of Mysore on March 22, 1968.
The learned Judges of the
High Court held that in as much as the respondent held the post of
Stcre Keeper on the date of the Industrial Truce, he was wtitled to
continue in that post and to enjoy the revised pay scale pertaining to
that post The petitioner Corporation obtained special leave to appeal,
and leave being granted this appeal is. now before us.
It is clear that the High Court has omitted to note that in considering the claim of the respondent to a particular grade of pay, the terms
of the Industrial Truce have perforce to be applied in the light of the
equation of posts,
The equation of posts effected under the States
Reorganisation Act constitutes a fundamental feature of the employment structure in the Mysore State Road Transport Department The
equalion of posts was necessitated by the coming together, into one
department, of employee6 from different transport services l1ailing from
different regions and previously operating under different Governments.
Both the revised grade of pay set forth in the fodustrial Truce and !he
newly determined equation of posts were inspired by the need to harmonise the terms and conditions of service between employees drawn from
the different units. The High Court erred in considering the terms of
the Industrial Truce only, The High Court should have first determined
what was the equated post in the integrated structure which corresponded to the post of Store Keeper in the Bangalore Transport Service by
the respondent. Having decided what was the equated post in the integrated structure, the High Court should then have discovered what was
the scale of pay attaching to that post That is the scale of pay to which
alone the respondent can lay claim, In as much as the post of Store
Keeper in the Bangalore Transport Service with the grade Rs. 75-51 00 stands equated with the post of Assistant Store Keeper with the
grade Rs. 92-8-140-10-180, it is the latter post and the grade of pay
to which the respondent is entitled with effect from April l, 1957. His
claim that he should all along be treated as holding the post of Store
Keeper in a substantive capacity, and to be paid, therefore, on that
basis is without substance, It is worthy of note that in an earlier writ
petition (writ petition No. 435 of 1961) filed by the respondent in the
High Court of Mysore, he claimed seniority over other employees of the
Mysore Government Road Transport Department, and in their judgment
dismissing the writ p~tition, the learned Judges observed that the respondent was an Assistant Store Keeper "under the new dispensation".
Towards the end, it was faintly urged on behalf of the respondent
that an order should be made by us requiring the appellant to make
payment to the respondent on th~ basis of the scale of pay attachini; to
the post of Store Keeper at least for the period during which he held
that pmt temporarily under the new dispensation.
On the material
c
E.
728
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R.
.A
placed before us, it is clear that no such order can be granted. TJ\e
respondent has in fact been paid during that period on the basis of
which he lays claim.
Accordingly. the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court
dated March 22, 1968 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
However, in accordance with the order of this Court granting special
leave to appeal, the appellnat shall pay to the respondent his costs of
the appeal.
:S.R.
Appeal allowed.
...
./-1
, ..
•
' •