Miss Lucy
← All judgments

J. Linet vs Assistant Manager (Depot) Food Corporation of India

Supreme Court8 February 2018Kurian Joseph · Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A court finding by the High Court that an employee worked in an additional post becomes final and binding, and cannot be reopened by subsequent administrative orders issued without fresh consideration of that finding; therefore, when the High Court has found that an employee performed work in an additional capacity and is entitled to additional remuneration for that period, the employer must disburse the wage differential for that period, adjusting for any emoluments already paid, notwithstanding any intervening administrative order.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 963 OF 2009

J. LINET Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE ASSISTANT MANAGER (DEPOT) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. All that survives in this appeal is a claim

made by the appellant for additional payment for

work rendered by the appellant in the post of

Messenger in addition to her normal work. In the

impugned Judgment, at paragraph 4, the High Court

has entered a finding to the effect that the

appellant has, in fact, worked in the post of

Messenger for two and a half years.

2. Paragraph 4 of the impugned Judgment reads as

under :-

“But the appellant is justified in Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA contending that she is entitled to Date: 2018.02.17 11:02:21 IST Reason: additional payment on the strength of Exhibit P2 order whereby she had been allotted additional duty 2

in an office as a messenger in addition to her normal work. Therefore, the respondents shall consider payment of additional remuneration to the appellant for the days she had worked as messenger in addition to her normal work. It is also made clear that as the entire case of the petitioner had been reconsidered and a fresh order was passed as per Exhibit R3(A), the appellant-petitioner will be entitled to seek her remedy against it as per law”

3. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondents, however, has invited our attention

to order dated 12.12.2005 whereby the case of the

appellant has been considered and by way of a

speaking order, the same has been rejected. We

find it difficult to appreciate the submission.

4. The finding of the High Court as against the

respondents has become final. In the above

circumstances, this appeal is disposed of with a

direction to the respondents to disburse the

difference in wages for the period of two and a 3

half years in the post of Messenger after

adjusting the emoluments already granted to her

while working as a casual worker. The needful

will be done within two months from today.

No costs.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

.......................J. [ MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]

New Delhi;

February 08, 2018.

4

ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.5 SECTION XI -A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 963/2009

J. LINET Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE ASSTT. MANAGER (DEPOT) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 08-02-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

For Appellant(s) Mr. V. K. Sidharthan, AOR Mr. Shabu Sreedharan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Pudussery, AOR Mr. K. Vijayan, Adv.

Mr. Ajeet Singh Verma, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed

non-reportable Judgment.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free