# STATE OF MYSORE AND ANR v. H. SRINIVASAMURTHY

- **Citation:** [1976] 3 S.C.R. 255
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-01-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 722 of 1968
- **Bench:** Arkaria, S. MuRT•zA FAz-'-I~ Au
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-mysore-and-anr-v-h-srinivasamurthy-6762
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

255
Constuuuon of India-Articles 14 and
I6-Pe11alty-Di.1crin1ination-Civil
Service-Departing fronz Adnlinistratire Po/icy.
The respondent entered service of the State of 1lysore in 1935 as Instructor
of Tailoring in the Department of Public
Instruction. In 1949 he went on
deputation in the Polytechnic In_stitute at Devangere.
One K. N. Chetty \Vh?
was far junior to respondent was also sc:tt on deputation to another similar instiA
B
tution in 1949.
K. N. Chetty \Vas absorbed from the date he went on deputaC
tion in the new post but respondent was not so absorbed.
In 1955, for no· fault
of the respondent, Government passed orders reverting him to his parent departn1ent. In 1956, respondent, was again posted on deputation. The interven~
ing pcri1)d beiwecn his reversion and re-posting Vi'as treated as leave.
On reorganisation of State respondent's services \.Vere allotted to the new State of
I\<1yserc.
The respondent made several representations and stated that he was
discrimir.:::iled against and treated differently from K. N. Chetty v;ho was junior
to him in the parent dep:::irtment.
The Public Service Comn1ission found that
respondent's case v.'as on all fours with tha1 of Chetty nn<l that he deserved simiD
lar tr~at1nent. The Commission follnd that the temporary reversion of the respondent io his parent department was not justified.
The Government in 1964
ordered the absorption of the respondent in the Department of Technical Education fron1 the date of the order subject to the conditions that he would not be
entitled to the benefit of revision of scales of pay that had heen effected in 19:57
and 1961 and that he would not be given any more financial benefit or revision
of pny or nddition inCrem~nt for his previou~ service.
The respondent filed a Writ Petition challenging these conditions and praying
E
for a dir~ction that he should be absorbed in the Department of Technical Education fron1 the date of his initial appointment in 1949, and granted consequential benefits of the revision of p<1y scales etc. The appellant opposed the
\Vrit P~tition on the grounds that the respondent had no legal right to be absorbed in the Department of Technica~ Education \Vith effect frorn a particular
anterior date or to be given the revised pay scales applicable to those borne
permanently in the service of that department.
Chctty's case Was sought to be
distin_guished on the _ground that he \Vas absorbed in the year 1951 as against
F
the respondent's absorption in 1964 and that there \1,:as a break in the service
of the re~pondent.
The 1-:ligh Court allowed the Writ Petition and issued a direction that absorp·
tion of the respondent in the Department of Technical Education be given effect
from 1949 when he initially assumed duty on deputation. The High Court aho
declared that he would be entitled to <ill consequential benefits.
The appellant in an appeal by Special Leave relied on the judgment of this
Hon'ble Court in the case of K. V. Raja!akshn>iah Setty v. State of Mysore [1967]
G
2 S.C.R. 70.
Diss111issing the appeal,
HELD : In ~he present case it appears that the State had evolved a principle
pursuant to \vh1ch all the employees who came on deputation from nther de~
partmci:its to the Polytechnic, exceptii:g the respondent, were absorbed permanently rn the Department of Technical Education
with
effect from 1he
~at~s on which they came on deputation. Even Chctty who was ndmittedlv
1un1or to the :esponden~ <ind was identically situated ~--as accorded the sam~
t~eatment. It 1s an undisputed fact that 6 other employees who were similarly
situated. were absorbed from the date on which they initially joined. duty after
deputation to the Polytechnic.
[259 A-C, 260 DJ
H
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 S.C.R.
A
.
There was no justification whatever to depart from this principle of policy
in the case of the respondent.
His reversion was not ordered owing to any
fault on his part. The said reversion could not be treated as a break :in service
s

## Text

-
;.
STATE OF MYSORE AND ANR.
v.
H. SRINIVASAMURTHY
January 29, 1976
[R. S. S,ARKARIA AND S. MuRT•zA FAz-'-I~ Au, JJ.]
255
Constuuuon of India-Articles 14 and
I6-Pe11alty-Di.1crin1ination-Civil
Service-Departing fronz Adnlinistratire Po/icy.
The respondent entered service of the State of 1lysore in 1935 as Instructor
of Tailoring in the Department of Public
Instruction. In 1949 he went on
deputation in the Polytechnic In_stitute at Devangere.
One K. N. Chetty \Vh?
was far junior to respondent was also sc:tt on deputation to another similar instiA
B
tution in 1949.
K. N. Chetty \Vas absorbed from the date he went on deputaC
tion in the new post but respondent was not so absorbed.
In 1955, for no· fault
of the respondent, Government passed orders reverting him to his parent departn1ent. In 1956, respondent, was again posted on deputation. The interven~
ing pcri1)d beiwecn his reversion and re-posting Vi'as treated as leave.
On reorganisation of State respondent's services \.Vere allotted to the new State of
I\<1yserc.
The respondent made several representations and stated that he was
discrimir.:::iled against and treated differently from K. N. Chetty v;ho was junior
to him in the parent dep:::irtment.
The Public Service Comn1ission found that
respondent's case v.'as on all fours with tha1 of Chetty nn<l that he deserved simiD
lar tr~at1nent. The Commission follnd that the temporary reversion of the respondent io his parent department was not justified.
The Government in 1964
ordered the absorption of the respondent in the Department of Technical Education fron1 the date of the order subject to the conditions that he would not be
entitled to the benefit of revision of scales of pay that had heen effected in 19:57
and 1961 and that he would not be given any more financial benefit or revision
of pny or nddition inCrem~nt for his previou~ service.
The respondent filed a Writ Petition challenging these conditions and praying
E
for a dir~ction that he should be absorbed in the Department of Technical Education fron1 the date of his initial appointment in 1949, and granted consequential benefits of the revision of p<1y scales etc. The appellant opposed the
\Vrit P~tition on the grounds that the respondent had no legal right to be absorbed in the Department of Technica~ Education \Vith effect frorn a particular
anterior date or to be given the revised pay scales applicable to those borne
permanently in the service of that department.
Chctty's case Was sought to be
distin_guished on the _ground that he \Vas absorbed in the year 1951 as against
F
the respondent's absorption in 1964 and that there \1,:as a break in the service
of the re~pondent.
The 1-:ligh Court allowed the Writ Petition and issued a direction that absorp·
tion of the respondent in the Department of Technical Education be given effect
from 1949 when he initially assumed duty on deputation. The High Court aho
declared that he would be entitled to <ill consequential benefits.
The appellant in an appeal by Special Leave relied on the judgment of this
Hon'ble Court in the case of K. V. Raja!akshn>iah Setty v. State of Mysore [1967]
G
2 S.C.R. 70.
Diss111issing the appeal,
HELD : In ~he present case it appears that the State had evolved a principle
pursuant to \vh1ch all the employees who came on deputation from nther de~
partmci:its to the Polytechnic, exceptii:g the respondent, were absorbed permanently rn the Department of Technical Education
with
effect from 1he
~at~s on which they came on deputation. Even Chctty who was ndmittedlv
1un1or to the :esponden~ <ind was identically situated ~--as accorded the sam~
t~eatment. It 1s an undisputed fact that 6 other employees who were similarly
situated. were absorbed from the date on which they initially joined. duty after
deputation to the Polytechnic.
[259 A-C, 260 DJ
H
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 S.C.R.
A
.
There was no justification whatever to depart from this principle of policy
in the case of the respondent.
His reversion was not ordered owing to any
fault on his part. The said reversion could not be treated as a break :in service
since it was treated as leave, nor did it nmount to reduction in rank. [260 F-HJ
The High Court ·was therefore, justified in granting the relief, it did to the
respondent.
1261 Bl
"Rajalaksfvniah Setty \·. State of lvfysore, [1967] 2 S.C.R. 70, di~tinguished.
~
...
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 722 of 1968.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
17th July, 1967 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 989
of 1965.
Narayan Nettar and K. R. Nagaraja for the Appellant.
c
Mrs. Shyamla Papp11 and Vineet Kumar for the Respondent.
D
E
F
G
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SARKARIA, J .-The circumstances leading to this appeal, directed
.
1
against a judgment of the High Court of Mysore, are as follows :
...,
The respondent herein entered the service of the Princely State of
Mysore in 1935 as Instructor of Tailoring ·in the Department of
Public Instructions.
In 1949, three Occupational Institutes
(Polytechnics) at Hassan, Devangcre and Chintamani were started in the
State.
The respondent was sent on deputation to serve in the Polytechnic at Devangere as Instructor in Tailoring and he joined the new
post on November 28, 1949.
One Shri K. Narayanaswamy Chetty
who was also an Instructor in Tailoring in the Department of Public
Instruction was also deputed to the Occupational Institute at Hassan
and joined duty there on December 1, 1949. This K. N. Chetty was
far junior to the respondent in service. Special Officer-in-Charge of
the three Occupational Institutes considered the names of the respondent and K. N. Chetty for absorption as Instructors in Tailoring and
recommended for their absorption with effect from the respective dates
of their joining duty, after deputation, in the Institutes. Accordingly
K. N. Chetty was absorbed with effect from December 1, 1949, but no
order was passed in the case of the respondent despite repeated representations made by the latter.
In 1953, the then State of Mysore set up the Department of
Technical Education and the Polytechnic at Devangere became part of
that Department.
The respondent continued to serve on deputation
in that Department. In 1955, for no fault of the respondent, the
Government passed orders reverting him to his parent Department. On
June 11, 1956, the respondent was again posted on deputation as
Instructor in Tailoring in the Polytechnic at Bellary "on provisional
basis". The intervening period between his reversion and .reposting to
the Polytechnic was treated as leave. On the re-orgamza!ion of States
with effect from November l, 1956, his services were allotted to the
new State of Mysore. The respondent continued to make representations to the effect that like other employees who were taken on deputation from other Departments, he should also be absorbed in the
Department of Technical Education with effect from November .28,
1949, which was the date on which he initially came on deputat10n.
t
(
•
...
MYSORE v. H. SRIN!VASAMURTHY (Sarkaria, !.)
257
His specific grievance was that in any case, he could not be discriminated against and treated differently from K. N. Chetty who was junior
to him in the parent Department and came on deputation to the Polytechnic establishment subsequently.
The State Government referred
the respondent's case to the Public Service Commission who examined
it and by a communication, dated Febrnary 2,
1960, made these
recommendations in favour of the respondent;
"It is stated in the Government letter dated 26-10-1959
that the Director who was the Unit Officer for
both the
dcpartinents ordered the tra·nsfor of Sri Srinivasa Murthy
who was fully qualified as Tailoring Instructor in the Technical Education Department and there was no need to classify
the vacancy post to which he was transferred under the then
existing rules.
Along with him
Sri K.
Narayanaswamy
Chetty who was his junior and possessing similar qualifications was transferred as Tailoring Instructor in the Technical
Education Department and was absorbed in the same department by Government in consultation with
the Public
Service Commission. The case of Sri Srinivas.amurthy is on
all fours with that of Sri Narayanaswamy Chetty and he is
deserving of similar treatment.
In view of the above, and since Sri Srinivasa Murthy, who
was fully qualified was transferred in 1949 by the Director
and appointed as Tailoring Instructor under the rules then in
force, and as his reversion at this distance of time for no fault
of his would cause a great hardship to him, the Commission
A
B
c
D
are of the opinion that he may be· absorbed as Tailoring InE
structor from the date of his appointment as such as has been
ordered in the case of Sri K. Narayanaswamy Chetty."
In the opinion of the Commission, the temporary reversion of the
respondent to his parent department in 1955-56, was not justified.
Ultimately. the Government by order, dated February 19, 1964,
ordered the absorption of the respondent in the Department of TechF
nical Education in the grade of Rs. 150-250 with effect from the date
of the order, in the vacancy in which he was working, subject to these
conditions.
(a) that he would not be entitled to the benefit of revision of scales of pay that had been effected in 1957 &
1961 by way of increments or
weightage
benefit
G
accruing thereunder;
(b) that he would not be given any more financial benefit
or revision of pay or additional increments for
his
previous service.
Against this order the respondent made
representations
to
the
Government praying that his absorption should be related back to
H
_1949 a_nd he be given the benefit of the revisions of pay scale, includ-
. rng: weightagc benefit.
The Government did not accept the representation.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 S.C.R.
On April 21, 1965, the respondent filed a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution in the High Court, for the issue of a writ of
mandamus directing his absorption in the Department of Technical
Education from the date of his initial appointment therein,
namely.
November 28, 1949, and to give him benefits of the revisions cf pay
scales effected in 1957 and 1961 and wcightage benefits thereunder.
The order dated February 19, 1964, was impugned on the ground that
he had been in, ""m1sly discriminated against in the matter of absorption and appointment, while his junior K. Narayanaswamy
Chetty,
whose case was identical in all respects, and six other officers whc were
similarly situated, were absorbed in the
Department
of
Tee 'rnical
Edncation with effect from the, initial date of joining duty on deputation. It was contended, that in making the impugned order, co1trary
to the recommendations of the State Public Service Commission, the
State Government had acted arbitrarily and in violation of Artie. es 14
and 16 of the Constitution.
The petition was opposed by the appellant, who in its co,rnteraffidavit. contended that the respondent had no legal right to tc absorbed in the service of the Department of Technical Education from
a particular anterior date, or to be given the revised pay scales applicable to those borne permanently in the service of that Depar :ment.
It was further contended that the case of the respondent did not stand
on the same footing as that of Narayanaswamy Chctty becaus': the
order of Chetty's absorption was passed in 1951 and that of t~e respondent's absorption in 1964, and there was a break in the serl'icc of
the respondent in the Department of Technical Education, in 19:i5-56.
It was stated that the absorption of the employees which came on
deputation from a particulaor date, was a concession which could not
be claimed as of right, and consequently, a writ of mandamus, as prayed
for by the respondent, should not be issned.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and issued a direction
that the absorption of the respondent in the Department of Te<hnical
Education, be given effect from November 28, 1949 when he initially
resumed duty on deputation to the Polytechnic at Dcvangerc.
The
High Court further declared that he will be entitled to all consequential benefits from such abosrption including the be)lefit of revision of
pay scales in the years 1957 and 1961 and also weightage benefits.
Hence this appeal by the State.
Mr. Nettar appearing for the appellant contends that this ,;ase is
fully covered by this Court's decision in K. V. Rajalakshmiah Setty
and anr. v. State of Mysore and anr. ('). The point canvassed by the
Counsel is, that the absorption of K. N. Chctty and five other;, with
effect from particular anterior dates, was not made in pursuance of any
principle of policy or statutory rule, but was done as a matter of concession. It is urged that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to enforce a mere concession. Counsel has further made
an attempt to show that the respondent and K. N. Chctty were not
similarly situated because there was a break in the respondent's service
with the Department of Technical Education.
(!) [1967] 2 S.C.R. 70.
I
!
....
MYSORE v. H. SRINIVASAMURTHY (Sarkana, J.)
259
As against this, Mrs. Shyamla Pappu submits that in RajalakshA
miah Setty's case (supra), the facts were entirely different. It is emphasised that in the present case, seven employees had come on deputation from other Departments to the Polytechnics and _all of them,
excepting the respondent, were absorbed permanently in the Department of Technical Education with effect from the dates on which they
came on deputation.
Even Narayanaswamy Chetty, who was admittedly junior to the respondent, and was
identically
situated, was
B
accorded the same treatment. It is urged that this principle of policy
was ignored in the case of the respondent, and he was without reason,
singled out for unfair discriminatory treatment. It is pointed out that
his so-called "reversion" to the parent Department in 1955 for a short
period, was a misnomer. It was not a reduction in rank, nor a break
in the continuity of his service. Moreover, it was, as the Public Service
Commission found, undeserved and could not, by any
stretch of
C
reasoning, be considered a ground for meting out discriminatory treatment to the respondent.
·
We find a good deal of force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondent.
Rajalakshmiah Setty v. State of Mysore (supra) is clearly distinD
guishable from the facts of the present case. In that case, the Government of the then State of Mysore, by a notification dated December 12, 1949, directed that the promotions of 63 petitioners therein,
from the post of Surveyors as Assistant Engineers were to take effect
from that date irrespective of the dates on which they were put in
charge of sub-divisions.
But by a notification dated May 17, 1950,
the Government showed a concession to a different batch of 4 I SurE
vcyors, who had been placed in charge of ·different sub-divMons
between March 1944 and January 1946,
by
promoting them
as
Assistant Engineers, with effect from the
dates
of occurrence of
vacancies, according to seniority.
In November 1958, another batch
of 107 persons were similarly promoted as Assistant Engineers with
retrospective effect from !st November 1956, when the new State of
Mysore emerged under the States Reorganization Act. The petitioners
F
therein filed a writ petition praying for the issue of mandamus directing the State to fix their seniority, also, on the basis that they had become
Assistant Engineers from the dates on which the vacancies to which
they had been posted had occurred.
The High Court dismissed the petition.
On appeal, this
Court
held that the concession shown to the batch of 41 persons who had
G
been appointed before the petitioners and to the batch of 107 persons
who had been appointed thereafter, were mere ad hoc concessions
and not SOil)ething which they could claim as of right. It was observed
that there was no service rule which the State Government had transgressed, nor the State had evolved any principle to be followed in
respect of persons who were promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineers from surveyors.
H
It may be noted that the grant of the relief prayed for by the 63
petitioners, would have unsettled and caused wholesale alterations of
A
ll
c
D
E
F
G
H
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 S.C.R.
the seniority list with regard to the entire cadre of Engineers thus affecting persons who were not before the Court and who would have been
condemned unheard.
Further, acceptance of the petitioners' contentions would have unsettled pre-Constitution matters, and it would have
been directly productive of results going against s. 115(7) of the
States Re-organization Act. Furthermore, the petitioners in that case
claimed to be promoted with effect from past dates.
There was no
principle of policy or service rul_e on the basis of which they could
claim such promotions as of right.
Lastly, the petitioners in that
case were found guilty of serious ]aches.
Such impediments in the way of the relief claimed by the respondent, do not exist in the present case. It appears to us that the
acceptance of the respondent's contentions in the present case cannot
lead to any untoward results such as were apprehended. in Rajalakshmiah's case (supra). Indeed, it has not been shown that the absorption of the respondent with effect from November, 1949, would ad,
versely affect even Narayanaswamy Chetty, who was admittedly junior
to him in the parent Department.
On the other hand, it is an undisputed fact that six other employees,
who were similarly situated, were absorbed from the dates on which
they initially joined duty, after deputation to the Polytechnics. It is
not the case of the appellant that this principle whereby the absorption
in the Department of Technical Education was related back to the
date on which a person initially came on deputation, was ever departed
from, excepting in the case of the respondent. This being the case,
the High Court was right in holding that the State Government had
evolved a principle "that if a person was deputed to the Department of
Technical Education from another department and he stayed on in
that other department for a reasonable long time his absorption in that
department should be made to relate back to the date on which he
was initially sent". There was no justification whatever
to depart
from this principle of policy in the case of the respondent, who was,
in all material respects, in the same situation as K. N. Chctty. Very
rightly, the High Court has held that his "impermissible reversion" for
a short while in 1955 to the parent department was no ground to hold
that he was not similarly situated as K. Narayanaswamy Chetty. This
so-called reversion to the parent Department for a short period in
1955-56, could not by any reckoning, be treated as a break in his
service, this period having been treated as leave. Nor did it amount
to reduction in rank. In any case, this 'reversion' was not ordered
owing to any fault of the respondent. It is not the appellant's case
th.at the responderrt's work in the Department of Technical Education
)
. .,
j
'
i
MYSORE v. H. SRINIVASAMURTHY (Sarkaria, J.)
261
was found unsatisfactory or that he was not otherwise suitable or quali- A
fied to hold the post of Tailoring Instructor in that Department.
That
he was suitable to be absorbed in that post, is manifest from the recommendation of the Public Service Commission and is implicit in the
impugned order, itself.
For the reasons aforesaid, we are of opinion that in the special
circumstances of this case, the High Court was fully justified in granting B
the relief, it did, to the respondent.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
P.H.P.
Appeal dismissed.