Holding

The retrospective bifurcation of the common cadre of Junior Engineers into Division‑I and Division‑II under the 1975 Act is inoperative; the bifurcation becomes effective only from 9 January 1974, and the appellants must be treated as Division‑I (Assistant Engineer) from that date with full salary and benefits.

Summary

The appellants, originally recruited as supervisors in the Karnataka Public Works Department in the early 1960s, later obtained engineering degrees and sought to be treated as Junior Engineers (Division‑I) after the 1974 bifurcation of the service. The State had merged the supervisor and junior engineer cadres in 1969, equalised pay in 1971, and then bifurcated the cadre into Division‑I (graduates) and Division‑II (non‑graduates) in 1974, giving the 1975 Act retrospective effect to 1956. The Karnataka High Court held that the retrospective bifurcation was invalid but allowed the bifurcation from 9 January 1974, while the Administrative Tribunal dismissed the appellants' petitions. The Supreme Court held that the 1975 Act’s retrospective bifurcation of the common cadre violated Articles 14 and 16(1) and was therefore inoperative; the bifurcation could only take effect from 9 January 1974. Consequently, the appellants were ordered to be placed in the Division‑I (Assistant Engineer) cadre from that date with full salary, arrears, seniority and other benefits. The Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and allowed the appeal in part.

Issues considered

The validity of the retrospective bifurcation of the common cadre of Junior Engineers into Division‑I and Division‑II under the 1975 Act in view of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
From which date the appellants could be treated as members of the Division‑I (Assistant Engineer) cadre and be entitled to corresponding pay and benefits.
Whether the Karnataka High Court’s decision invalidating the retrospective effect of the Act is binding on the Tribunal.
Whether the Administrative Tribunal erred in concluding that the High Court’s decision did not affect the retrospective bifurcation of the cadre.

Legislation cited

Karnataka State Civil Service (Classification of Scale of Pay of non‑graduate Junior Engineers of the Public Works Department) Act, 1975s. 2(1)(i), s. 2(1)(ii), s. 3(1)(i)

Subjects

Service lawRetrospective legislationConstitutional lawArticles 14 and 16(1)Cadre bifurcationPay scaleKarnataka Public Works DepartmentJunior EngineerSeniorities and arrears

Judgment

K. RAVINDRANATH PAI AND ANR. A
v
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 20, 1995

[KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) B

Service Law: Kamataka State Civil Service (Classification of Scale of
pay of non-graduate Junior Engi.neers of the Public Works Department) Act
1975 ·: Graduate Engi.neers and Dip,oma Engi.neers-Appointed as Junior
Engi.neers and Suprevisors respectively-Later merged into one cadre of Junior c
Engineers-Again bifurcated into Junior Engi.neers Divisions I & II with effect
from 9.1.1974-Diploma Engi.neers initially appointed as supervisors later ac-
quiring engi.neering Degree prior to 9.1.1974-Entitlement to become Junior
/ Engi.neer and the scale ofpay attached theret~eld, entitled to from 9.1.1974
and not earlier-Directions gi.ven to treat them as such and to give all conse-
D
quential benefits.

The appellants were initially diploma holders in Engineering and
-,,k were recruited as Supervisors in the years 1960 and 1961 in the State
Public Works Department. Later on, appellant nos. 1 and 2 acquired
Engineering degrees in 1967 and 1970 respectively. The relevant recruit- E
ment rules at the time of their recruitment, stipulated that only degree
holders were entitled to be appointed as Junior Engineers while diploma-
holders could be appointed as supervisors. In 1969, this position was
changed and both the cadres of Junior Engineers and Supervisors were
merged into one cadre of Junior Engineers.
F
In 1971, the State Government extended identical pay scales to both
graduate and diploma bolder Junior Engineers, with retrospective effect
from 1.1.1957.

~' In 1974, the State Government bifurcated the State service into two
cadres namely Junior Engineer (Division I) & Junior Engineer (Division
G
Il), comprising of degree holders and diploma holders respectively.
--i~
'lbe Karnataka State Civil Service (Classification of Scale of Pay of ,,.
non-graduate Junior Engineers of the Public Works Department) Act 1975
was enacted providing for classification and scale of pay admissible • H
121
J
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A' non-graduate Junior Engineers of State PWD. These Scales were also given
retrospective effect from 1.11.1956.

This bifurcation of cadres was challenged before the High Court,
during the pendency of which the above said Act came into force. The High
Court held that bifurcation of the combined cadre of Junior Engineers
B which was holding the field from 1969 to 1974 could be operative from
9.1.1974 for the purpose of separate pay scales of graduate and non-.
graduate junior Engineers. However, the High Court invalidated the
· retrospectivity given prior to 9.1.1974. Thus, the High Court restrained the
respondents from recovering any part of the salary received by non-
C graduate Junior Engineers for any period prior to 9.~.1._974 and also
directed the State Government to pay the salary which accrued to them
a:pto 9.1.1974 which had not been paid.

Therefore, the appellants approached the High Court by way of Writ
Petitions for treating them as Junior Engineers (Division I) in the light of
D the existing qualification of graduation. The writ petitions were transferred
to the Tribunal which was established in the meantime. The Tribunal
dismissed the same. Hence these appeals.

Allowing. the appeal in part, this Court
E HELD: 1. There is no question of treating the appellants as belonging
• to bifurcated cadre of Junior Engineers (Division-I) from any date prior to
9.1.1974 as claimed by them. The respondent authorities are directed to
treat the appellants as belonging to the cadre of Junior Engineers (Division-
1) (Assistant Engineers, as now designated) with effect from 9.1.1974 and fax
F the salary of the appellants in the scale applicable to Assistant Engineers l
with effect from that date and also to give to the appellants all consequential
benefits including arrears of salary, ranking and seniority in the cadre of
Assistant Engineer on that basis. (131-H, 132-A-B]

2. The Tribunal is, right when it took ~e view that the said decision
G of the High Court nowhere' expressly laid down that the Kamataka State
Civil Service (Classification of Scale of Pay of non-graduate Junior En·
gineers of P.W.D.) Act, 1975 was invalid in so far as it gave retrospective
effect to the bifurcation of the common cadre of Junior Engineers with
effect from 3.7.1969 and it was on that basis that the Tribunal non-suited
ff· the appellants, However, the Tribunal's final conclusion is'not well SUS•
'
K.R.PAiv. STATEOFKARNATAKA 123
tained. Once the Karnataka High Court took the view that retrospective A
bifurcation of pay scales of earlier existing common cadre of junior En-
-+ - gi~eers was bad, on a parity of reasoning and as a logical corollary it must
follow that bifurcation of that common cadre retrospectively from 3.7.1969
would also be bad; otherwise, an inconsistent and incongruous position,
would result, namely for both the bifurcated cadres of Junior Engineers B
Division-I comprising of graduates and Junior Engineers Division-II com-
prising of non-graduates, one common pay scale (which is really meant (or
the higher cadre of Junior Engineers Division-I) would remain operative
from 3.7.1969 till the date the Kamataka Act 9of1975 came into force. It
is obvious that the aforesaid situation would be highly discriminatory and
violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, as it would result in C
hostile discrimination against graduate Junior Engineers Division-I and
discrimination in-favour _of non-graduate Junior Engineers Division-II.

r (128-B~EJ

3.1. It is now well ~~Uled that even though the Legislature has power
tO retrospectively amend J._ statute, it should not be done in a manner which D
would violate fundamental rights under Articles 14 read with 16(1). On the
day on which the Kamataka Act came into force, the graduates and non·
graduates Engineers belonged to a common cadre of Junior Engineers and
were drawing same pay scales. There could be no discrimination between -
graduate incumbents and non-graduate incumbents of the common cadre E
in so far as common pay scale was concerned, as held by the High Court.
If that is so the Act by its retrospective sweep could not destroy the fun·
damental rights of all these incumbents of a common cadre to be treated
alike for all other available service benefits flowing from the common cadre.
[129·A·C]
F
3.2. In view of the settled legal position, the Act in so far as it sought
to introduce by Section 3(l)(i), retrospective. bifurcation or the common -
cadre of Junior Engineers into two cadres of Junior Engineers (Division-I)
for graduates and Junior Engineers (Division-II) for non-graduates from
1.11.:1.956 is inoperative in law. On a parity reasoning it was rightly held
by the High Court in writ petition no. 3182 of 1973 and connected matters, G
that Section 2(l)(ii) could not operate retrospectively to destroy common
pay scales available to both the Junior Engineers • graduates and non·
graduates. Section 2(l)(i) also could not operate retrospectively to bifur·
cate the said common cadre with effect from 1.11.1956. It will also have
only prospedlft effect. Consequently, the bifurcation of pay scales as well- H
)
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R. ..

A as of the common cadre. of Junior Engineers would legally become effective
.I

at the highest from 9.1.1974 when the Government order of even dated
introducing such a Scheme saw the light of the day. It could not have may )-
retrospective effect. [130-H, 131-A-C]

State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and Ors.,
B [1983] 2 SCR 287, followed.

K Narayanan ~d Ors. v. State of Kaniataka and Ors., (1994) Supp.
l sec 44, relied on.

4. Obviously and admittedly on 9.1.1974 both the appellants were
C having graduation degrees. In fact both of them bad got theil' degrees since
long, from 1967 and 1970 respectively. Consequently, when the question of
allotting the appellants to the proper bifurcated cadre of Junior Engineen
with effect from 9.1.1974 came up, the respondents were bound to treat the
appellants as belonging to the bifurcated cadre of Junior EOgineen
D (Division-I) for graduates with effect from 9.1.1974. The appellants cannot
claim that they may be treated as belonging to the Junior Engineen
(Division-I) retrospectively from 1967 and 1970 since such a separate
cadre of Juniol' Engineen (Division-I) did not exist during that period.
[131-E-F]
E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 7629-30
of 1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.88 of the Kamataka Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Kamataka in A Nos. 4814-.15 of 1986 (T).

F S.R. Bhat for the Appellants.

M. Veerappa for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
..
G MAJMUDAR, J. These two civil appeals by special leave seek to_
challenge a common order dated 30.1.1988 _of the Administrative Tribunal,
Karnataka in Application Nos. 4814 and 4815 of 1986 moved by the present
· two appellants. The tribunal has dismissed these applications. -'.).-

A few introductory facts to highlight the commo,n' grievance of die
H appellants may be noted at the outset. The appellants were initially diploma
I
I
'
K.R.PAiv. STATEOFKARNATAKA[MAJMUDAR,J.) 125

holders in engineering. They were recruited as Supervisors in the years A
1960 and 1961 in the Public Works Department of Karnataka State. Later,
Appellant no. 1 acquired degree in engineering in 1967 and appellant no.
2 acquired graduation in engineering in 1970. At the time of their recruit-
ment, relevant recruitment rules envisaged that only degree holders were
entitled to be appointed as Junior Engineers, whereas diploma holders B
could be appointed as Supervisors. In 1969 this position was changed and
both the cadres of Junior Engineers and Supervisor were merged into one
cadre of Junior Engineers. This was followed by the an order of the
Karnataka State in 1971 extending identical pay scales with retrospective
effect from 1.1.1957 to both graduate and diploma holder Jlinior Engineers.
The Karnataka State by another order dated 9.1.1974 sought to bifurcate C
the service into two cadres, namely, Junior Engineer (Division-I) and
/ Junior Engineer (Division-II). The former cadre was to comprise of degree
holders and the later of dipioma holders. This bifurcation of cadres was
sought to be given· retrospective effect from 3.7.1969. This retrospective
bifurcation was sought to be supported by an enactment called the Kar- D
nataka State Civil Services (Classification and Scale of Pay of Non-graduate
Junior Engineers of the Public Works Department) Act, 1975 being Act 9
of 1975. The Act provided for classification and scale of pay.admissible to
non-graduate Junior Engineers of the Public Works Department of the
State ofKarnataka. By Section 2 of the said Act, the posts of non-graduate
Junior Engineers were· declared to have existed with retrospective effect E
from 1st November, 1956. By sub-section 2(1) (ii) of the said Act it was
provided that the scales of pay admissible to such non-graduate Junior
Engineers were to be only those specified for such category of posts and
not those admissible to categoey of Junior Engineer graduates. These scales
were also given retrospective effect from 1.11.1956.
F
The aforesaid bifurcation of cadres was brought in ·challenge in
Karnataka High Court by with petition no. 3182 of 1973. During the
pendency of the writ petition Karnataka Act 9 of 1975 came into force. The
High Court by its decision dated 1.9.1981 took the view that.bifurcation of
the combined cadre of Junior Engineers which was holding the field from G
1969 to 1974 could be operative from 9.1.1974 for the purpose of separate
pay scales of graduate and non-graduate Junior Engineers. In so far as the
Act sought to give retrospective effect to its operation for a period prior
to 9.1.1974, it was regarded as invalid. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus
\was issued restraining the respondents from recovering any part of the H
J
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A. salary received by the non-graduate Junior Engineers petitioners for any
period prior to 9.1.1974 and a further mandamus was issued to pay the .:r-
salary which accrued to them upto 9.1.1974, which had not been paid. The
WI'it petitions were accordingly partly allowed.

It is thereafter that the appellants approached the Karnataka High
B Court by filing writ petitions for issuance of appropriate order against
respondent authorities detecting them to treat the appellants as Junior
Engineers (Division-I) in the light of their existing qualification of gradua-
tion. The said direction was sought for appellant no. 1 from 3.7.1969, on
.. which date by Gazette notification a combined cadre of Junior Engineers
C · had come into operation, while .a similar direction was sought for appellant
No. 2 from 1970, from the date on which he got graduation.

These writ petitions were transferred to the Karnataka Administra-
tive Tribunal which had got established in the meantime. The Tribunal by
· its impugned common order dismissed the writ petitions which were
D freated as applications. The Tribunal took the view that the decision of the
Karnataka High Court dated 1.9.1981, on which strong reliance was placed
by the appellants, was with reference to the retrospective revision of pay
scale only, that the Division Bench of the.High Court had struck down the
retrospective effect of the Karnataka Act only on the aspect of fixing
E separate pay scales for Junior Engineers graduates and non-graduates from
any date prior to 9.1.1974 but the retrospective bifurcation of the cadre of
Junior Engineers into Junior Engineers graduates (Division-1) and non-
graduates (Division-II) was not touched by the High Court. Consequently,
such bifurcation of combined cadre of Junior Engineers into the separate
cadres of Junior Engineers - graduates and non-graduates-had to be
F treated to have come into operation from 1.11.1956. As per the Act there
was no question of treating the appellants as belonging to the cadre of·
Junior Engineers (Division-I); so too, non-graduate Supervisors would not
be entitled to be included in 'the cadre of Junior Engineers (Division-I)
even if they acquired degrees while in service.
G . Having heard the learned counsel of the parties, we have reached
the conclusion that the decision of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.

It is no doubt true that the appellants ·had joined the service of the
Karnataka State as non'-graduate diploma holder Supervisors; but by
H Government JiOtification dated 18th June, 1969 the Governor of Mysore
K.R. PAiv. STATE OFKARNATAKA[MATMUDAR, J.) 127

State in exercise of his powers under Article 309 of the Constitution A
amended Karnataka Public Works Department Service (Recruitment)
Rules, 1960. The said amendment came into force from 3.7.1969, when the
said notification was gazetted. By the said amendment to the recruitment
rules a combined cadre of Junior Engineers was formed and the category
of posts of Supervisors was omitted from the entry relat.ing to the posts of B
Junior Engineers in the schedule to the Rules. The result was that from
3.7.1969, pursuant to amendment of recruitment rules as per Government
notification, there merged a combined cadre of Junior Engineers and all
erstwhile incumbents whether graduates or non-graduates were put on par .
in a common cadre of Junior Engineers. The earlier distinction between
graduate Junior Engineers and non-graduate Supervisors was abolished. C
The appellants who were earlier Supervisors, therefore, became Junior
Engineers, pursuant to the aforesaid Government notification. Their inter
se seniority vis-a-vis graduate Junior Engineer had to be determined ac-
cordingly by treating all of them to be belonging to a common cadre of
Junior 'Engineers.
D
This situation not only continued but was further highlighted by
Government order dated 5.3.1971 by which parity of pay scales to.
graduates and non-graduates Junior Engineers was extended with
retrospective effect from 1.1.1957. Thus, the appellant Supervisors who
were earlier non-graduates became entitled to draw the same pay scale as E
that of graduate Junior Engineers, as all of them from 3.7.1%9 onwards
belonged to the same cadre of Junior Engineers. This situation continued
till 9.1.1974, when by a Government order bifurcation of the common
existing cadre of Junior Engineers was made effective by re-classifying
posts of Junior Engineers (Division-I) for graduates and Junior Engineers
(Division-II) for non-graduates.
F

It is of course true that this bifurcation was sought to be made with
----< retrospective effect from 3.7.1%9 and that is what even the subsequent Act
9 of 1975 purported to do. It is to be noted that 52 petitioners who went
to the High Court by way of writ petition no. 3182 of 1973 and others G
-.(. decided on 9.1.1981 were principally aggrieved by recovery sought to be
effected from their pay on the basis of the impugned Government order
~d the. Act bifurcating the common cadre of Junior Engineers retrospec-
tively with effect from 3.7.1%9 and bringing into force separate pay scale
fo~ these two cadres. It is also true that the High Court by its final order H
\
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 2 S.C.R.
'
A gave relief to those petitioners by holding that retrospective amendment to
the Act by which the pay scales were sought to be adversely affected could •t-
not be sustained.

The Tribunal is, therefore, right when it took the view that the said
decision of the High Court nowhere expressly laid down that the Act was
B invalid in so far as it gave retrospective effect to the bifurcation of the
common cadre of Junior Engineers with effect from 3.7.1969 and it was on
that basis that the Tribunal non-suited the appellants. But in our view the
Tribunal's final conclusion is not well sustained. Once the Karnataka High ~
Court took the view that retrospective bifurcation of pay scale of earlier
c existing commQn cadre of Junior Engineers was bitd, on a parity of reason-
ing and as a logical corollary it must follow that bifurcation of that common
cadre retrospectively from 3.7.1969 would also be bad; otherwise, an incon-
sistent and incongruous position would result, namely, for both the bifur-
~'
cated cadres of Junior Engineers, being Division-I comprising of graduates
and Junior Engineers Division-II comprising of non- graduates, one com-
D 'mon pay scale (which is really meant for the higher cadre of Junior
engineers Division-I) would remain operative from 3.7.1969 till the date the
:tai:nataka Act 9 of 1975 came into force. It is obvious that the aforesaid
situ_ation would be highly discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and
16(1) of the Constitution, as it would result in hostile discrimination against
E graduate Junior Engineers Division-I and discrimination in favour of non-
graduate Junior Engineers Division-II.

It has also to be kept in view that the decision of the Karnataka High
Court in writ petition 3182 of 1973 and others is acquiesced in by the State
and has become final. It is obvious that if as per the said decision, separate
F
pay scales for Junior Engineers (Division-I) and Junior Engineers
(Division-ii) are not to be sustained with retrospective effect from 3.7.1969,
it necessarily follows that su~h .retrospective bifurcation of two separate
cadres also could not be sustained with effect from 3.7.1969. Separate
cadres cannot survive .independently of separate pay scales. Retrospective
G bifurcation of common cadres.of Junior Engineers into two separate cadres
of Junior Engineers (Division-I) for graduates and Junior Engineers -
...,,-
(Division-II) for non-graduates can survive with separate pay scales or not
at all.

H. With respect, the Tribunal has not appreciated this legal position. It
K.R.PAlv. STATEOFKARNATAKA[MATMUDAR,J.) 129
is now well settled that even though the Legislature has power to retrospec- A
tively amend a statute, it should not be done in a manner which would
violate fundamental rights under Articles 14 read with 16(i). On the day
on which the Karnataka Act came into force, the graduates and non-
graduates Engineers belonged to a common cadre of Junior Engineers and
were drawing same pay scales. There could be no discrimination between B
graduate incumbents and non-graduate incumbents of a common cadre in
so far as common pay scale was concerned, as held by the High Court. If
that is so the Act by its retrospective sweep could not destroy the fun-
damental rights of all these incumbents of a common cadre to be treated
alike for all other available service benefits flowing from the common
cah C
In this connection, we may usefully refer to a decision of Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Raman Lal
Keshav Lal Soni & Ors., [1983] 2 SCR 287. At pages 319 & 320 Chinnappa
Reddy, J. speaking for the Court has made following pertinent observa- D
tions:

''The legislation is pure and simple, self- deceptive, if we may
use such an expression with reference to a legislature-made law.
The legislature is undoubtedly competent to legislate with
retrospective effect to take away or impair any vested right ac- E
quired under existing laws but since the laws are made under a
written Constitution, and have to conform to the do's and don'ts
of the Constitution neither prospective nor retrospective laws can
be made so as to contravene Fundamental Rights. The Law must
satisfy the requirements of the Constitution today taking into F
account the accrued or acquired rights of the parties today. The
law cannot say, twenty years ago the parties had no rights, there-
fore, the requirements of the Constitution will be satisfied if the
law is dated back by twenty years. We are concerned with today's
right and not yesterday's. A legislature cannot legislate today with
reference to a situation that obtained twenty years ago and ignore G
the march of events and the constitutional rights accrued in the
course of the twenty years. The would be rnost arbitrary, un-
reasonable and a negation of history. It was pointed out of a
Constitution Bench of this Court in B.S. Yadav & Ors. Etc. v. State
of Haryane. and & Ors. etc., Chandrachud, CJ., speaking for the . H
}
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 2 S.C.R.

A Court, "Since the Governor exercises the legislative power under
the· proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, it is open to him to
give retrospective operation to the rules made under that provision.
But the date from which. the rules are made to operate,· must be
shown to bear either from the face of rules or by extrinsic evidence,
reasonable nexus with the provisions contained in the rules, espe-
B cially when the retrospective effect extends over a long period as
in this case". Today's equals cannot be made unequal by saying
that they were unequal twenty years ago and we will restore that
position by making a law today and making it retrospective. Con-
stitutional rights, constitutional obligations and constitutional con-
c sequences cannot be tempered with that way. A law which if made
today would be plainly invalid as offending constitutional
provisions in the context of the existing situation cannot beeome
valid by being made retrospective. Past virtue (Constitutional)
cannot be made to wipe out present vice (constitutional) by making
retrospective laws".
D
It is equally well settled that even a statutory rule which can have
retr~spective effect should not result in discrimination or any violation of
constitutional right. In the case of K Narayanan and Ors. v. State of
Kamataka and Ors., (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 44, R.M. Sahai, J. speaking for
E this court has made the following observation in this connection: -

"Rules operate prospectively, Retrospectivity is exception. Eve•
where the statute permits framing of rule with retrospectiYc die«
the exercise of power must not operate discriminately or in viola-
tion of any constitutional right so as to affect vested right. The
F I
rule-making authority should not be permitted normally to act in
the past. The impugned rule made in 1985 permitting appointment
r
by transfer and making_it operative from 1976 subject to availability
of vacancy in effect results in appointing a Junior Engineer in 1986
with effect from 1976. Retrospectivity of the rules is a camouflage
G for appointment of Junior. Engineers from a back date. The rule
operates viciously against all those Assistant Engineers who were
appointed between 1976 to 1985."

In view of the settled legal position, therefore, it must be held that
H the Act ·in so far as it sought to introduce by Section 2(1)(i), retrospective
K.R. PAlv. STATEOFKARNATAKA[MAJMUDAR,J.) 131

bifurcation of the. common cadre of Junior Engineers into two cadres of A
· Junior Engineers (Division-I) for graduates and Junior Engineers
(Divisions-II) for non-graduate from 1.11.1956 is inoperative at law. It must
be held, on a parity reasoning which appealed to the the High Court when
it held in writ petition no.3182 qf 1973 and connected matters, that Section
2(1)(ii) could not operate retrospectively to destroy common pay scales B
available to both the Junior Engineers graduates and non- graduates.
Section 2(1)(i) also could not operate retrospectively to bifurcate the said
common cadre with effect from 1.11.1956. It will also have only prospective
effect. Consequently, the bifurcation of pay scales as well as of.the comnion
cadre of Junior Engineers would legally become effective· at the highest
from 9.1.1974 when the Government order of even dated introducing such C
a scheme saw the light of the day. It could also not have any retrospective
effect.

Once the above conclusion is reached, the result becomes obvious.
Both the appellants were belonging to the common cadre of Junior En-
gineers upto 8.1.1974. That cadre got bifurcated into the cadre of Junior D
Engineers (Division-I) fot graduates and Junior Engineers (Division-II) for
non-graduates with effect from from 9.1.1974. Therefore,. on 9.1.1974
respondents were required to fit in the appellants in the proper cadre.
Obviously and admittedly on 9.1.i974 _the appellants were having gradua-
tion degrees. In fact both of them had got their degrees since long from E
1967 and 1970 respectively as seen by us earlier. Consequently, when the
question of allotting the appellants to the proper bifurcated cadre of Junior
Engineers with effect from 9.1.1974 came up, the respondents were bound
to treat the llppellants as befonging to the bifurcated cadre of Junior
Engineers (Division-I) for graduates with effect from 9.1.1974. We cannot F
accept the extreme contention put forward by appellants that they may be
treated as belonging to the Junior Engineers (Division-I) from 1967 and
1970 retrospectively as oh our own finding such a separate cadre of Junior
Engineers (Division-I) did not exist during the period. To recapitulate,
from July 1969 till 8.1;1974 there was a common cadre of Junior Engineers
to which the appellants belonged along with other incumbents. The cadre G
of Junior Engineers (Division-I) saw the light of the day on 9.1.1974 as we
have discussed earlier.

So, there is no question of treating the appellants as belonging to
bifurcated cadre of Junior Engineers (Division-I) from any date prior to , H~
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R. ·

A. 9.1.1974 as claimed by them. The appellants are therefore entitled to a
partial relief to the following extent. the respondent authorities are directed
'
to treat the appellants as belonging to the cadre of Junior Engineers
(Division-I) (Assistant Engineer, as now designated) with effect from
9.1.1974 and fix the salary of the appellants in the scale applicable to
Assistant Engineers with effect from that date and also to .give to the
B appellants all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, ranking
and seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer on that basis.

The appeals stand allowed to the aforesaid extent. The common
judgment and order of the Tribunal shall stand set aside and substituted
C by the present decision. In the facts and circumstances of the case there
will be no order as to costs. ·

G.N. Appeals allowed.