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