Case: Mysore State Road Transport Corporationbangalore Vs. H. Venkataramanappa

FAZAL ALI, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 22nd March, 1968 and arises in the following circumstances.2. The appellant was an employee of the Bangalore Transport Company and entered service as far back as 1944. On 28th September, 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 1st 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 the reorganisation of the States on 1st November, 1956 various employees from other regions were transferred to the Mysore Road Transport Corporation and various units were amalgamated with the Mysore 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 large number of factors published a fresh equation of posts with corresponding scales of pay. In this new dispensation the post held by the respondent came to be equated with that of an Assistant Store Keeper. On 26th June, 1958 the Mysore Government Road Transport Department 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. In consequence of this arrangement a circular No. 12 of 58 dated 26th June, 1958 was issued which m2y 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 1st April, 1957.Unit Heads are therefore instructed to inform all the employees to declare their option on the basis of the provisional equation 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 are adversely affected by the , changes made.Upon the staff exercising the option the Unit Heads of Hubli, Belgaum, Bijapur and Raichur will arrange to refix the salaries of the staff in the categories mentioned in Circular Letter No. 8 of 1958. In the case of staff of B.T.S. and Bangalore Divisions, the Unit Heads will arrange to refix the, pay of all staff with weightage and give effect to these from 1st 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 of 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, All payments made will be provisional and subject to the necessary adjustments on the finalisation of equation "of posts."3. 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. Thereafter, the respondent was temporarily promoted as Store Keeper and was reverted as Junior Assistant and was again temporarily promoted as Store Keeper. On 1st 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 respondent. The writ petition f ailed 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 of a certificate of fitness for leave to appeal to this Court 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 to the post of others Keeper which was in exist ence 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 particularly when he chose to opt for the new scale under the new dispensation. The Division Bench of the High Court appears to 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 respondent was below the post of Store Keeper and until he bad by regular promotion reached the higher post he could not claim to be appointed to the new post 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 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 respondent be entitled to be appointed permanently 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 dispensation. 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 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. We do not, therefore, find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent.It was secondly urged by counsel for the respondent that even though 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 for 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 reasons this contention is also overruled.4.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]In these circumstances, therefore, neither in law nor according to rules could the respondent be entitled to be appointed permanently 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 dispensation. 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 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. We do not, therefore, find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent.It was secondly urged by counsel for the respondent that even though 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 for 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 reasons this contention is also overruled.