http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: SHANKAR PANDURANG JADHAV AND ORS. ETC>

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VICE-ADMIRAL, FLAG OFFICER, COMMANDING-IN-CHIEFAND ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/02/1991

BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) RAMASWAMI, V. (J) II FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 SCR  (1) 219        1991 SCC  (2) 209  JT 1991 (1)   301        1991 SCALE  (1)123

ACT:      Service  and Labour Law:  Transfer-Naval  Dockyard-Time Keepers   Cadre-Entitled  to  benefits  of   over-time   and productivity  linked  bonus-Merger with clerical  cadre-  To provide  avenues of promotion-Transfer to other  ministerial departments  entailing  loss  of benefit  of  over-time  and bonus-Transfer resisted-Held that employees who were serving the  Time Keeping Department before the merger order not  to be transferred without their consent-Those joining after the merger order have no right to resist transfer.      Service  law-Presidential  order merging  Time  Keepers Cadre  with  Clerical Cadre-Subsequent Order issued  by  the Western Naval Command-Inconsistency if any to be ignored  as it  could not alter or modify the Presidential  Order-To  be read harmoniously with the President Order.

HEADNOTE:      The  appellants  and Writ Petitioners are  serving  the Time Keeping Department of the Naval Dockyard, Bombay  under the  control of the Western Naval Command.  With a  view  to removing  the  stagnation in the cadre of Time  Keepers  for lack of promotion avenues, the Government of India, Ministry of  Defence, by its letter dated 14.9.1966 addressed to  the Chief Naval Staff conveyed the sanction of the President  to the merger of the Time Keepers Cadre with the Clerical Cadre in all Naval establishments.  Consequent to this merger  the Jr. Time Keepers were to be re-designated as Lower  Division Clerks and Sr. Time Keepers as Upper Division Clerks.  A few days  thereafter  the office of the  Rear  Admiral,  Western Naval  Command, issued a letter dated 5.12.1966 which  reads as under:      ".......................      ................      2.  This merger is intended only to give  promotion  to the   Time  Keepers along with the LDC/UDC.   Their  duties, terms and conditions                                                        220 of  Services  will remain the same and their hours  of  work will also continue to be  45 in a week.      3. Consequent upon the issue of this order and in order to  distinguish them from the UDC/LDC and UDC(s)/LDC(s)  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

suffix "T" will be added after their designation.      As  per  their  conditions  of  service  the  employees serving in the Time keeping Department were entitled to  the benefit of over-time and productivity-linked bonus but those belonging   to   the   clerical   cadre   working   in   the Administrative Offices of the Dockyard were not entitled  to these benefits.      One Thoppil Ramakrishnan on being transferred in August 1980  as  UDC(T)  in the Spare  Parts  Distribution  Centre, challenged his transfer by a Writ Petition in the High Court of  Bombay  wherein he contended that as  he  was  initially appointed Jr. Time Keeper and promoted as UDC(T) in 1967  he belonged to a special cadre and could not be transferred  to the  general cadre as that would entail loss of  benefit  of over-time  and  bonus.  The High Court treating  the  letter dated 5th December, 1966 as merely clarificatory, held  that there was no complete merger of the two cadres and on the statement  of  the  counsel  for  the  petitioner  that  the petitioner  will not claim the benefit  of promotion in  the clerical  cadre,  allowed  the writ  petition  quashing  the transfer order.      Realising  the situation created by its letter  of  5th December, 1966 the western Naval Command cancelled the  said letter  and consequently inter-se transfer became  possible. Thereafter,  some employees in the Time  Keeping  Department were  transfered  by orders dated 17.4.1985  and  5.10.1985. The  affected employees filed a Writ Petitions in  the  High Court   which   were  later  transfered   to   the   Central Administrative   Tribunal.    The  Tribunal  came   to   the conclusion  that after the cancellation of the  Order  dated 5.12.1966,  the  field was held by  the  Presidential  Order dated  14.9.1966, that under the merger Scheme envisaged  by the   said   order   the  employees  in  the  Time   Keeping Department  no longer belonged to a  separate Cadre  and  as such  the  Authorities were  entitled to  transfer  them  to other ministerial branches.  The Petitions were  accordingly dismissed  by  a common judgment dated  9th  October,  1989. This judgment is assailed  by the concerned employees in the appeals before this court.  One Writ Petition has also  been filed by some other                                                        221 employees apprehending similar transfers.      Allowing  the appeals partly insofar as they relate  to five  employees  who belonged to the separate cadre  of  the Time  Keeping  Department  at the date of  issuance  of  the Presidential Order and dismissing the same in respect of the remaining appellants and also dismissing the Writ  Petition, this Court,      HELD: The letter of 14th September, 1966 clearly refers to the Presidential sanction "to the merger of the cadre  of Time   Keepers  with  the  clerical  cadre  in   all   Naval establishments".  Consequent on this merger, the Junior Time Keepers   were to be redesignated as Lower  Division  Clerks and the Senior Time Keepers as Upper Division Clerks.  There is nothing in this letter to convey that they were to retain their identity as Time Keepers.[227E]      The  subsequent order of 5th December, 1966  issued  by the Western Naval Command could not alter this  Presidential Order.    If   that  subsequent  order  was  found   to   be inconsistent with the Presidential Order, it had to  ignored for  the  simple  reason  that the  Officers  of  the  Naval establishment were not competent to alter, very or modify  a Presidential Order. [228B]      It is difficult to understand how those who entered the Time  Keeping Department after the merger order, can  refuse

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

to  go  on  transfer on the plea that they  would  suffer  a financial  loss.  They can have no right to the post in  the Time Keeping Department.  So long as they are there and  are discharging the functions of the Time Keeper, they would  be entitled  to the special benefit of over-time and bonus  but on  that  plea  they  cannot  contend  that  they  are   not transferable to the ministerial posts.  We have,  therefore, no  hesitation in concludingthat those who joined  the  Time Keeping  Department  after the  Presidential  Order   became effective,  have  no right to continue  in  that  department merely  because  their transfer would entail  economic  loss since  they  are  governed by the merger  scheme  which  had become  operative  before their entry  in  that  department. They  were borne on the common cadre and were never  members of the original Time Keepers Cadre. [229G-230B]      So  far as those Time Keepers who were serving  in  the Time   Keeping  Department  on  and  before  the   date   of implementation  of the Presidential Order and  who  continue to  serve  in  the  same  department   are  concerned,   the department  should give them an option if they are  proposed to   be   transferred  outside  that   department   or   the depart-                                                        222 ment  should undertake to make good the economic loss  which they are likely to suffer on transfer. [230F-G]      The  State  of  Kerala v. M.K. Krishnan  Nair  &  Ors., [1973] 1 SCC 552, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil appeal Nos. 552-554 of 1991.      From  the  Judgment and Order dated  9.10.1989  of  the Central  Administrative  Tribunal, New  Bombay  in  Transfer Applications No. 430, 431 and 433 of 1987.      B.K. Mehta, C.P. Pandey, M. Chopra and V.S. Sharma  for the Appellants.      K.  Lahiri,  Ms. Kitti Kumaramangalam and   Ms.  Sushma Suri (NP) for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      AHMADI, J. Special leave granted      The  appellants and the writ petitioners are  presently serving  in  the  Time  Keeping  Department  of  the   Naval Dockyard, Bombay, which is under the administrative  control of  the  Vice-Admiral,  Flag  Officer,  Commanding-in-chief, Western Naval Command, Bombay.  In the said department there are several posts of Junior  Time Keepers and only two posts of  Senior Time Keepers.  Since the promotional  posts  were limited  in number there was stagnation at the base level of Junior   Time  Keepers.   With  a  view  to  removing   this stagnation,  the  cadre  of Time Keepers was  sought  to  be amalgamated with the clerical cadre in the same  department. On  14th   September,  1966,  the  Under  Secretary  to  the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, wrote a letter  to the  Chief of Naval Staff on the subject of amalgamation  of the Time Keepers cadre with the clerical cadre.  The text of the letter reads as under:          "Sir,          I  am  directed  to  convey  the  sanction  of  the          President  to  the  merger of  the  cadre  of  time          keepers  with  the  clerical  cadre  in  all  Naval          Establishments.  Consequent on this merger,                                                        223          Senior  Time Keeper will be redesignated  as  Upper

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

        Division  Clerks.   The  authorised  ratio  of  1:4          between UDCs and LDCs will be maintained after this          merger   but  where  because  of  the  merger   and          redesignation  of  Senior  Time  Keepers  as  Upper          Division Clerks the number of Upper Division Clerks          exceeds the authorised ratio, no reservations  will          be made and the excess vacancies of Upper  Division          Clerks will be adjusted against vacancies of  Upper          Division  Clerks  becoming  available  by  way   of          increase in Establishment, retirement, etc.          2.  The  existing pay of the time keepers  will  be          protected and they will continue to draw increments          in the new cadre on the due dates:          3. Any subsidiary instructions regarding  seniority          promotion etc. will be issued by you.          4.This   letter  issue  with  the  concurrence   of          Ministry of Finance (Defence/Navy) vide their  u.o.          no. 3161 NA dated 31.8.1866." A  few days later another  letter dated  5th December,  1966 was issued by the office of the Rear Admiral, Western  Naval Command, Bombay, on the same subject which reads as under;          "In accordance with the Govt. of India, Ministry of          Defence letter No. CP(A)/4895/NHQ/8364/D/N-II dated          14th September 1966 the Cadre of Time Keepers  will          be merged with that of LDC/UDC with effect from 1st          December, 1966.          2.  This merger is intended only to give  promotion          to  the Time Keepers alongwith the LDC/UDC.   Their          duties,  terms  and  conditions   of  service  will          remain the same and their  hours of work will  also          continue to be 45 in a week.          3.  Consequent upon the issue of this order and  in          order  to  distinguish them from  the  UDC/LDC  and          UDC(s)/LDC(s)  the suffix "T" will be  added  after          their designation.  All records and  correspondence          relating  to them should also be indicated by  this          suffix".                                                        224 The  employees working in the Time Keeping  Department  were entitled to the benefit of over-time and productivity linked bonus since they were considered to belong to the industrial wing.   Lower  Division  Clerks and  Upper  Division  clerks belonging  to  the  clerical  cadre  who  were  working   in different administrative offices of the Naval Dockyard  were not  entitled to this benefit.  Therefore, when one  Thoppil Ramakrishnan  was transferred in August, 1980 as  UDC(T)  in the  Spare  Parts  Distribution Centre,  he  challenged  his transfer  by filing a Writ Petition No. 1065/80 in the  High Court of Bombay on the ground that since he was appointed as Junior  Time  keeper in 1953 and was promoted as  UDC(T)  in 1967  he  belonged  to  a special cadre  and  could  not  be transferred  to the general cadre as that would entail  loss of  the benefit of over-time and productivity linked  bonus. His petition was allowed by the High  Court by the judgement and  order dated 1st March, 1984.  The High Court,  treating the letter of 5th December, 1966 as clarificatory, concluded that the merger was intended for the sole purpose of  making available  to the Time Keepers avenues of promotion  in  the clerical  cadre  but their terms and conditions  of  service were to  remain in tact and it is for that purpose that they were  to  be designated by the suffix"T".  The  High  Court, therefore, held that there was no complete merger of the two cadres.  The High Court, however, realised that Time Keepers could not be given promotion to more responsible assignments unless   they   received   the   required   experience    of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

administrative  work  normally available to  Lower  Division Clerks and Upper Division Clerks, but rested content on  the statement  made by the counsel for the petitioner  that  the pertitioner  will not claim the benefit of promotion in  the clerical  cadre.  On this statement the High Court made  the rule  absolute.   Against this judgement  a  Letters  Patent Appeal was filed but without success.  Another Writ Petition No.1066/80 files by Chob Singh Tomar was similarly  disposed of by the same learned Judge on the next day i.e. 2nd  March 1984.      Both  the  above  Judgement were mainly  based  on  the language of the letter of 5th December, 1966.  Realising the difficulty  created  by the saidletter,  the  Flag  Officer, Commanding-in-Chief,   Western   Naval   Command,    Bombay, cancelled  the said letter by his communication  dated  27th August, 1984.  The subsequent communication reads as under:          "1.      Ministry      of      Defence       Letter          CP(A)/4895/NHQ/8634/D(N-II)  dated  14 Sep.  66  is          reproduced   as  Annexure  I  to  this  order   for          information.                                                        225          2.This  Headquarters Civilian  Establishment  Order          Part  II  of 1966 No.6 dated 05 Dec. 66  and  50/80          dated 23 Aug. 80 are hereby cancelled." By  a  subsequent letter dated 20th November,  1984  it  was further  directed that the suffix"S" and suffix  "T"  should bed  removed from all records and the incumbents  should  be redesigned as LDCs/UDCs.  On the cancellation of the  letter of  5th  December, 1966 and the removal of the  suffix  "T", what survived was only the merger order of 14th  September, 1966.  Consequently inter-se transfers from the Time keeping Department to the various administrative departments of  the Naval Dockyard became possible.  Thereupon, R.A. Sawant  and R.D. Jawakar who were working in the Time Keeping Department were  transferred on promotion as UDC by orders  dated  17th April,  1985  and 5th October, 1985  respectively  to  other administrative  departments  of  the  naval   establishment. These transfers triggered off certain writ petitions in  the High  Court of Bombay.  On the constitution of  the  Central Administrative Tribunal for that area, those writ  petitions were transferred to the Tribunal for disposal in  accordance with  law.   The Tribunal by its impugned  common  judgement dated  9th October, 1989 came to the conclusion  that  after the  cancellation of the order dated 5th December, 1966  the field was held by the Presidential Order referred to in  the letter of 14th September, 1966.  The Tribunal held that  the employees in the Time Keeping Department no longer  belonged to  separate  cadre  and the authorities  were  entitled  to transfer them to the other ministerial branches in the Naval establishment  under  the Merger Scheme.  In regard  to  the judgements delivered by the High Court of Bombay on 1st  and 2nd  March, 1984, it opined that on the cancellation of  the order  of 5th December, 1966 those decisions had lost  their force  and  the question had to be answered  solely  on  the basis  of  Presidential Order referred to in the  letter  of 14th  September,  1966.   In this view  of  the  matter  the Tribunal dismissed the applications and vacated the  interim orders.   It is against the said judgement of  the  Tribunal that the aforesaid appeals have been filed.      Certain  other employees who apprehended transfer  from the   Time  Keeping  Department  to   other   administrative departments in the Naval establishment approached this Court directly  by  way of a writ petition.  Their  contention  is identical to the contention raised in the appeals  preferred against  the  impugned  order  of  the  Tribunal.  We  will,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

therefore,  dispose  of  the appeals as  well  as  the  writ petition by this common judgement.                                                        226      Mr.  Mehta,  the  learned counsel  for  the  appellant- petitioners contended that the employees working in the Time Keeping Department of the Naval establishment perform duties which  are  distinct  from  ordinary  clerical  duties   and therefore  they  constitute a separate  and  distinct  cadre to which are attached certain additional monetary  benefits, such as, over-time payment, productivity linked bonus, etc., which  would  be  lost to them if they  are  transferred  to other administrative departments of the naval establishment. He  submitted  that since the Junior Time  Keepers  did  not have sufficient avenues for promotion and were stagnating at the   base  leval  and  the  Senior  Time  Keepers  had   no promotional avenue altogether, their grievance was sought to be redressed by providing them further avenues of  promotion under  the  Presidential Order, without  depriving  them  of their  identity and special benefits available as  belonging to  the industrial wing of the establishment.  According  to him the Presidential Order of merger contained in the letter dated  14th  September,  1966 was issued  for  this  limited purpose  only of giving the Time Keepers an  opportunity  of career advancement which was available to their counter-part in  the administrative (Non-industrial) departments  of  the Naval  establishment but it was never intended   to  deprive them of the additional monetary benefits to which they  were entitled  as  belonging to the industrial  wing.   In  other words according to Mr. Mehta the merger of the Time Keepers’ cadre with the clerical cadre was only notional and  limited to  opening avenues for promotion for the former  but  there was no actual merger in the sense of the Time Keepers losing their identity  and that is why in the subsequent letter  of 5th  December,  1966 the department  rightly  observed  that their  duties, terms and conditions of service  will  remain the same and their hours of work will continue to be 45 in a week  and  they should be distinguished by the  use  of  the suffix "T" after their designation.  The cancellation of the order of 5th December, 1966 by the subsequent order of  22nd August,  1984  does not alter the  situation  contended  Mr. Mehta and, therefore, said he, the Tribunal was in error  in coming  to the conclusion that the earlier two decisions  of the Bombay High Court had lost their force.  He,  therefore, submitted that the Tribunal’s approach was clearly erroneous and this Court must correct the same.      Mr.  Lahiri,  the learned counsel  for  the  department contended  that  the Presidential Order referred to  in  the letter  of 14th September, 1966 had merged both  the  cadres and the Time Keepers were, therefore, redesignated as  Lower Division  Clerks  and Upper Division Clerks.   He  submitted that there was no indication in the Presidential Order  that these Time Keepers who were redesignated as LDCs/                                                        227 UDCs will continue to constitute a separate cadre and yet be entitled to promotion in the clerical cadre.  He, therefore, submitted  that the subsequent order of 5th  December,  1966 was issued on an erroneous reading of the Presidential Order and when the department realised the mistake after the  High Court’s judgements, it promptly cancelled the said order and restored  the  position as on the issuance  of  Presidential Order.   He,  therefore,  submitted that  the  Tribunal  was right  in coming to the conclusion that as the High  Court’s judgements  were  based  on  the  subsequent  order  of  5th December,  1966  and  the  same  was  since  cancelled,  the judgements  no  longer held the field  and  the  appellants-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

petitioners  were  not entitled to the benefit  thereof.  He further pointed out that under the Presidential Order the  ‘ pay’  of the Time Keepers has been protected and  therefore, they  can  have  no  cause to complain  but  such  of  those LDCs/UDCs who are posted in the Time Keeping Department  are allowed  to draw overtime wages as well as bonus  admissible under the relevant law.  These benefits are attached to  the post  and not the individual and the one who is manning  the same  is  entitled to them and not others.   He,  therefore, submitted that this Court should not interfere with the view taken  by the Tribunal and should dismiss these  appeals  as well as the writ petition.      We  have  carefully considered  the  contentions  urged before us by the learned counsel for the contesting parties. The  letter  of 14th September, 1966 clearly refers  to  the Presidential  sanction"to  the merger of the cadre  of  Time Keepers    with   the   clerical   cadre   in   all    Naval establishments".  Consequent on this merger the Junior  Time Keepers were to be redesignated as Lower Division Clerks and there  Senior Time Keepers as Upper Division Clerks.   There is nothing in this letter to convey that they were to retain their  identity as Time Keepers.  The letter further  states that their entry into the clerical cadre should not  disturb the authorised ratio of 1:4 between UDCs and LDCs but  where because  of  the  merger and redesignation  of  Senior  Time Keepers as UDCs, the numbers of UDCs exceeds the  authorised ratio,  there should be no revision but in the excess should be  adjusted against vacancies becoming available by way  of increase  in establishment, retirement, etc. Paragraph 2  of that letter states that the existing pay of the Time Keepers will be protected and they will continue to draw  increments in  the  new cadre on the due dates.  It is clear  from  the above  text of the letter of 14th September, 1966  that  the intention  was to merge the cadre of Time Keepers  with  the clerical cadre and to adjust the imbalance.  If any,  caused on  account of such merger in a manner so as not to  disturb the  authorised ratio.  The pay and increments of  the  Time Keepers were protected by the said order.  There                                                        228 can,  therefore, be no doubt that the plain language of  the Presidential  Order  as  reproduced in the  letter  of  14th September, 1966, clearly manifests an intention to merge the existing Time Keepers’ cadre with the clerical cadre, albeit with  a view to opening avenues for promotion for  the  Time Keepers.  The subsequent order of 5th December, 1966  issued by   the  Western  naval  Command  could  not   alter   this Presidential  Order.  If that subsequent order was found  to be  inconsistent with the Presidential Order, it had  to  be ignored for the simple reason that the officers of the Naval establishment were not competent to alter, vary or modify  a Presidential  Order.   The  interpretation  placed  on  that subsequent letter by the Bombay High Court in the judgements delivered  on  1st  and  2nd  March,  1984  does  give   the impression  that  the High Court thought that there  was  no complete  merger and the personnel meaning the Time  Keeping Department  retained  their identity  and  were,  therefore, entitled  to  the  additional  benefits  of  over-time   and productivity  linked  bonus.   After  the  judgements   were delivered  the department instead of approaching this  Court thought  it  wise  to undo the mischief  by  cancelling  the subsequent order of 5th December, 1966 which was the  source of trouble.  Since the conclusion reached by the High  Court was  based  on the language of the subsequent order  of  5th December,  1966,  the Tribunal was not bound to  follow  the same on the cancellation of that order.  We may also  state,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

with respect to the learned judge in the High Court, that we find it difficult to persuade ourselves to his point of view for  diverse  reasons.  Firstly, the plain language  of  the text  of the Presidential Order manifests a clear  intention to  merge the cadre of Time Keepers with the clerical  cadre on the establishment.  Secondly, the subsequent order of 5th December,  1966  had  to  be  read  consistently  with   the Presidential Order as to fulfil the purpose or objective and not to impede or stifle it.  Thirdly, even if the subsequent order  was  found to be inconsistent with  the  Presidential Order  in  certain  respects, the inconsistency  had  to  be ignored for the obvious reason that  the officer issuing the order  could not have altered or modified  the  Presidential Order and lastly, if there was any confusion caused  by  the subsequent order it should  have been read harmoniously with the Presidential order Order so as to advance its  objective or  merger  of  the Time Keepers’ cadre  with  the  clerical cadre.      In  order to appreciate Mr. Mehta’s contention that  by the  Presidential  Order  only a  notional  merger  for  the limited   purpose  of  providing  the  Time   Keepers   with promotional avenues was intended and not actual merger so as to  deprive the Time Keepers of their distinct identity,  it is  necessary  to  realise  that the  sole  purpose  of  the exercise                                                        229 indisputably was to make career advancement possible for the Time  Keepers.  At the time of issuance of the  Presidential Order  there  were  only  two layers  in  the  Time  Keeping Department  of the establishment.  The base-level which  was fairly  large comprised Junior Time Keepers and  above  them were  Senior Time Keepers.  Since there were only two  posts of  Senior  Times Keepers, the prospects  of  promotion  for Junior Time Keepers were very dim.  As there was no  further promotional  avenue  for  the  Senior  Times  Keepers,   the mobility  was  restricted  and they  too  suffered  on  that account.   There was, therefore, large scale stagnation  and with a view to overcoming the same the question of merger of the  Time  Keepers’  cadre  with  the  clerical  cadre   was examined.    On   the  same  being   found   feasible,   the Presidential  Order  came  to be  issued.   The  High  Court realised  that if the Time Keepers do not gather  sufficient exprience  of administrative work they would not be able  to handle  responsible work at higher levels in  the heierarchy and  hence  their  movement  to  the  ministerial  posts  is absolutely  necessary.   But the High  Court  resolved  this situation  by obtaining a statement from the incumbent  that he would not claim the benefit of promotion to which he  may otherwise be entitled by reason of the merger policy.  Would this  advance the policy of merger or fulfil the purpose  of opening  avenues of promotion for the Time Keepers?  If  the mobility  from  Time Keepers’ post to the clerical  post  is halted  on account of the former’s unwillingness to move  to the  clerical side to gain experience and equip  himself  to discharge higher responsibilities in future merely to retain the monetary benefit accruing from overtime wages and bonus, it is difficult to understand how even the limited objective of  providing promotional avenues to Time Keepers  would  be satisfied.   And it is all the more difficult to  understand how those incumbents who entered the Time Keepers Department after the Presidential Order became effective can claim that they  have  a  vested right to continue  in  the  department because  they  would  suffer a monetary  loss  if  they  are transferred  to the clerical posts.  The list Annexure C  to the appeals would show that except for those at serial  Nos.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

1  to  3, 8 and 12, the rest of the  incumbents  had  either joined  as  LDC  in the Time Keeping  Department  after  the Presidential Order became effective or had been  transferred to that department from the other administrative departments where  they  were  working  as LDCs.   It  is  difficult  to understand  how those who entered that department after  the merger   via  the  other  administrative  branches  of   the establishment  can  refuse to go back on the  specious  plea that  they would suffer a financial loss.  They can have  no right  to the post in the Time Keeping Department.  So  long as  they are posted there and are discharging the  functions of the Keeper they would be entitled to overtime wages                                                        230 and bonus but on that plea they cannot contend that they are not transferable to the     ministerial   posts    on    the establishments.We    have,therefore,   no   hesitation    in concluding that those who joined the Time Keeping Department after  the Presidential Order became effective,either  by  a direct posting  in that department as LDC or on transfer  to that   department,have   no  right  to  continue   in   that department  merely because their would entail economic  loss since  they   are  governed  by  the   merger scheme   which had become operative before their entry in that department., They were borne on the common cadreand werenever  members of the earlier Time Keeper’s cadre.      But the case of those Time Keepers who  were serving as such in the Time Keeping Department,such as, the  incumbents at serial Nos.1 to  3, 8  and  12  (S.P.Jadhav,V.S.Khot,P.J. Rodrigues,  B.J.Dhamba  and  V.S. Shinde),  must  be  viewed differently.   They  belonged to a separate  cadre  of  Time Keepers  at  the date of the issuance  of  the  Presidential Order.   Their terms and conditions of service  couldnot  be altered,varied ormodified to their detriment without  giving them  an  opportunity to exercise their  option.   If  their transfer   outside  the  Time  Keeping  Department   becomes possible by the  merger  of their cadre  with  the  clerical cadre but the same entails civil consequences in the form of loss of overtime wages and bonus, justice demands that  they must be given an option to choose which course is  beneficial to  them and if they decide or opt  in favour of the  status quo  they must  be allowed to continue as Time  Keepers  and not  be  transferred outside that department  without  their consent,   because  to  do  so   would  render  the   scheme vulnerable   unless the department agrees to make  good  the economic  loss  suffered on transfer.  Therefore,so  far  as those  Time Keepers  who were serving  in  the  Time keeping Department  on and before the date of the implementation  of the Presidential Order and who continue to serve in the same department are concerned, the department should give them an option  if they are proposed to be transferred outside  that department  or the department should undertake to make  good the  economic  loss   which they are  likely  to  suffer  on transfer.Such  a  reading  of  the  Presidential  Order   is permissible on the plain language  of theorder and saves  it from  being rendered vulnerable.See: The State of Kerala  v. M.K.Krishnan Nair & Ors., [1978] 1 SCC 552 at 571.      In the  result we allow the appeals partly  insofar  as they  concern  the aforenamed five  persons  to  the  extent indicated  above  and  dismiss  them  in  respect   of   the remaining appellants.  Since the writ petitioners                                                        231 are  not  shown to belong to the category of  employees  who were  borne on the cadre of Time Keepers and  were  actually working  in the Time Keeping Department   on or  before  the issuance  of  the Presidential Order,  their  writ  petition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

fails  and is dismissed. There will,however, be no order  as to costs in the appeals as  well as the writ petition.                                Petition & Appeals dismissed                                                    232