//
you're reading...
legal issues

Service Matter – Higher post salary when entitled for – whether the appellant is entitled to salary of high post where in he had worked for few years as in charge with specific terms – Apex court held that The order dated 28th February, 2001, by which the appellant was allowed to discharge duties in the post of Assistant Manager had made it clear that the appellant would not be entitled to claim any benefit therefrom including higher salary and further that he would continue to draw his salary in the post of Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. If the above was an express term of the order allowing him to discharge duties in the higher post, it is difficult to see as to how the said condition can be overlooked or ignored and dismissed the appeal =CIVIL APPEAL NO.7692 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5396 OF 2013) A. FRANCIS … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS THE MANAGEMENT OF METROPOLITAN … RESPONDENT (S) TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., TAMIL NADU = 2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41827

Service Matter – Higher post salary when entitled for – whether the appellant is entitled to salary of high post where in he had worked for few years as in charge with specific terms – Apex court held that The order dated 28th  February,  2001,  by  which  the  appellant  was allowed to discharge duties in the post of Assistant  Manager  had  made  it clear that the  appellant  would  not  be  entitled  to  claim  any  benefit therefrom including higher salary and further  that  he  would  continue  to draw his salary in the post of Assistant Labour  Welfare  Officer.   If  the

above was an express term of the order allowing him to discharge  duties  in the higher post, it is difficult to see as to how the said condition can  be overlooked or ignored and dismissed the appeal =

in  the  present

appeal is the entitlement of the   appellant – A.   Francis  to

salary in the higher post of Assistant Manager wherein he  had  worked  from

28th February, 2001 till 31st May, 2005.=

 

The order dated 28th  February,  2001,  by  which  the  appellant  was

allowed to discharge duties in the post of Assistant  Manager  had  made  it

clear that the  appellant  would  not  be  entitled  to  claim  any  benefit

therefrom including higher salary and further  that  he  would  continue  to

draw his salary in the post of Assistant Labour  Welfare  Officer.   If  the

above was an express term of the order allowing him to discharge  duties  in

the higher post, it is difficult to see as to how the said condition can  be

overlooked or ignored.  The decision of this  Court  in  Secretary-cum-Chief

Engineer,  Chandigarh   (supra)  was  rendered  in  a  situation  where  the

incumbent was promoted on ad hoc basis to the higher  post.   The  aforesaid

decision  is  also  distinguishable  inasmuch  as  there  was  no   specific

condition in the promotion order  which  debarred  the  incumbent  from  the

salary of the  higher  post.   Such  a  condition  was  incorporated  in  an

undertaking taken from the employee which was  held  by  this  Court  to  be

contrary to public policy.

9.    For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit  in  this  appeal.

Consequently, the same is dismissed and  the  order  dated  29th  September,

2011 passed in Writ Appeal No.1181 of 2010 by the High Court  of  Judicature

at Madras is affirmed.

2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41827

RANJAN GOGOI, M.Y. EQBAL
Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,704,214 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,852 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com