1967 (4) TMI 215 - SC - Service Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reduction in rank without compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution.
2. Loss of lien on a permanent post and its impact on pension and gratuity.
3. Alleged discrimination in placing the post of Inspector-General of Registration (I.G.R.) in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) cadre only in the State of Madras.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reduction in Rank Without Compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution:

The appellant contended that transferring him to the post of Accommodation Controller amounted to a reduction in rank, which was done without adhering to Article 311 of the Constitution. This argument was based on the fact that the I.G.R. was designated as the Head of Department, whereas the Accommodation Controller was not. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the designation of a post as Head of Department does not necessarily determine rank. The appellant continued to draw the same pay scale as he did in his previous post as I.G.R., indicating no reduction in rank. Additionally, the post of I.G.R. was equated with that of a Deputy Collector or Assistant Secretary to Government, not a higher rank. Therefore, the transfer did not constitute a reduction in rank.

2. Loss of Lien on a Permanent Post and Its Impact on Pension and Gratuity:

The appellant argued that his transfer to the post of Accommodation Controller resulted in the loss of his lien on a permanent post, affecting his pension and gratuity rights. Initially, this was true, as the transfer did not provide for his retaining lien on any permanent post. However, subsequent government orders rectified this by creating a supernumerary post of I.G.R. in the State Service, ensuring that the appellant retained a lien on a permanent post. The court noted that the supernumerary post was a permanent post, not a temporary one, as it was created for an indefinite period until the appellant was confirmed in another post. This satisfied the conditions for qualifying for pension under Rule 361 of the Madras Pension Code.

3. Alleged Discrimination in Placing the Post of I.G.R. in the IAS Cadre Only in the State of Madras:

The appellant claimed that the post of I.G.R. was placed in the IAS cadre only in the State of Madras, resulting in unequal treatment. The court examined Rule 4(1) and Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, which allow the Central Government to determine the strength and composition of the IAS cadre in consultation with the State Government. The court found that such determinations could vary between states based on specific conditions and circumstances. It was not necessary for similar posts in all states to be placed in the same cadre. The court rejected the argument of discrimination, noting that there was no requirement for uniformity across states in determining the IAS cadre's composition.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding reduction in rank, loss of lien on a permanent post, and alleged discrimination. The appellant's rights to pension and gratuity were protected through the creation of a supernumerary post, and the transfer did not constitute a reduction in rank. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs.