Employee Absorbed In New Cadre Can't Be Denied Its Benefits Due To Initial Appointment In Another Cadre: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that once an employee is permanently absorbed in a cadre, he becomes a member of that cadre for all service purposes, and the cadre in which he was first appointed cannot thereafter be used to deny him the financial benefits attached to the cadre he was absorbed into.It held that upon absorption, the lien on the earlier post and the incidents of the earlier cadre cease to govern the employee's service conditions.Justice Irshad Ali held,“Absorption in service is not a mere administrative arrangement but results in complete integration of an employee into the new cadre. Upon such absorption, the earlier lien and incidents of the previous cadre cease to govern the service conditions of the employee. Consequently, all rights, obligations, promotional avenues and financial benefits become regulated by the service rules applicable to the cadre in which the employee stands absorbed.”Petitioner was appointed as Junior Noter and Drafter in the Circle Cadre on a temporary post at Panki Thermal Power Station, Kanpur in 1967. His services were absorbed in the Chief Engineer Cadre of the U.P. State Electricity Board by order dated 24th April 1978, he was confirmed on the post in 1983, and he retired as Office Superintendent on 31st July 2001. He was extended retiral benefits and has been drawing pension as an employee of the Chief Engineer Cadre.Service conditions of ministerial employees of the Board were governed by Regulations framed in 1970 under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. In 1998, amendments were introduced with retrospective effect from 1st April 1984, altering promotional avenues, sources of recruitment and eligibility conditions in the Chief Engineer Cadre. A Division Bench of the High Court set aside those amendments and restored the benefits available under the unamended Regulations in 2007. The Special Leave Petition against that judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Chairman and Managing Director of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. issued directions on 4th November 2009 for its implementation.Petitioner's grievance was that though employees of the cadre were granted the revised second and third time-bound pay scales of Rs. 1850-2930 and Rs. 2600-4000 in compliance with the 2007 judgment, he was left out. His representations drew no effective action and his claim was rejected on the sole ground that his initial appointment had been in the Circle Cadre.Before the High Court, counsel for petitioner argued that the lien on the earlier post vanished upon absorption and that denial of the scales to the petitioner alone was discriminatory. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner, having been appointed in the Circle Cadre on a temporary basis, was not entitled to the second and third time scales.The Court held that the absorption, confirmation, promotion and retirement from the Chief Engineer Cadre were undisputed, and the respondents, having treated the petitioner as an employee of that cadre for pension, could not fall back on his initial appointment to withhold only the financial benefits of the cadre.It held that the validity of the retrospective amendments no longer survived for consideration once the 2007 judgment attained finality, and that the respondents were under a legal obligation to implement it in respect of every similarly situated employee.“Administrative authorities cannot refuse to implement a binding judgment by inventing distinctions which were neither recognised nor approved by the Court while deciding the earlier batch of writ petitions.”It noted that the pleadings that others had been granted the revised scales, and that one Aminuddin Ahmad had been granted them after absorption though his initial appointment was in a different cadre, were not effectively rebutted. Extending the benefit to some while denying it to the petitioner was held to be manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.“Merely because the petitioner entered service through the Circle Cadre does not confer any legal authority upon the respondents to deny him benefits available to the cadre in which he permanently served for more than two decades. Acceptance of such a contention would render the very concept of permanent absorption meaningless and would create an artificial classification among employees belonging to the same cadre without any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.”Holding that the rejection order rested on an irrelevant consideration and suffered from complete non-application of mind, the Court quashed it and allowed the writ petition. A mandamus was issued commanding the respondents to grant the petitioner the amended second and third time-bound pay scales in terms of the judgment of 2007 by treating him as a member of the Chief Engineer Cadre, together with all consequential service and retiral benefits including revision of pay fixation, pension, gratuity, commutation and arrears. Case...

Employee Absorbed In New Cadre Can't Be Denied Its Benefits Due To Initial Appointment In Another Cadre: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Employee Absorbed In New Cadre Can't Be Denied Its Benefits Due To Initial Appointment In Another Cadre: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers