Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA versus C.N. VASUDEVAN
- Decided
- 7 May 2008
- Judges listed
- H.K. SEMA, MARKANDEY KATJU
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2008] 7 S.C.R. 1027 · 2008 INSC 602
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
p. 1027, margin G
The question involved in this appeal is as to whether the respondent is entitled to grant of honorarium/remuneration for the period he worked as Protector of Emigrants over and above his salary as Regional Passport Officer, Ahmedabad.
pp. 1027–1028, margin G
The respondent was working as a Regional Passport Officer. He was also assigned the duties and responsibilities of Protector of Emigrants. He filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal praying that since the responsibilities of the Regional Passport Officer and Protector of Emigrants are quite different, he may be paid an honorarium for working in the latter capacity. His prayer was allowed by the Tribunal. The
p. 1028, margin A
High Court, by its impugned order, affirmed the order of the tribunal. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
p. 1028, margin A
We have gone through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Regional Passport Officer, Ahmedabad before the Tribunal. It is stated in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit that in all 14 Passport Officers were authorised to perform the functions of Protector of Emigrants so as to decide whether a · person intending to depa;t from India is an emigrant or not for the purpose of Emigration Act, 1983. It is also stated that the
p. 1028, margin C
duties of Protector of Emigrant were part of the normal duty of the Regional Passport Officer. It is also stated that the duty of Protector of Emigrant was to be performed by the Regional Passport Officer during the normal office hours on working days only. It is further contended that the duties of Protector of Emigrants are being performed by the Passport Officers and that no additional duty or responsibility has been assigned to them. According to the said counter affidavit, therefore, there was no question of payment of honorarium to the Regional Passport Officer who was assigned the duties of Protector of Emigrants.
p. 1028, margin C
We agree with the aforesaid contention. Both the High Court and the Tribunal erred in law as well as in facts in granting honorarium to the respondent. The duties of Protector of Emigrants under the Emigration Act is part of the normal duties
p. 1028, margin G
of the Regional Passport Officer. Hence no extra remuneration has to be paid for the work over and above the salary as Regional Passport Officer. To give an analogous example, the District Magistrate/Collector of a district is often also the prescribed authority under various State and Central Acts for discharging functions under the said Acts. This does not entitle the District Magistrate/Collector to any extra remuneration over and abo 1e his normal salary.
pp. 1028–1029, margin G
In the premises aforestated, the orders of the tribunal ahd of the High Court are set aside. This appeal is allowed. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.
p. 1029, margin B