Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNION OF INDIA KUNJ BIHARI SHARMA & ORS versus TARA CHAND SHARMA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Supreme Court Cases

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


UNION OF INDIA KUNJ BIHARI SHARMA & ORS V. TARA CHAND SHARMA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS [1998] RD-SC 375 (3 August 1998)

SUJATA V. MANOHAR, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

WITH
3950-3953 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 1998 ----------------------------------------------- (Arising out of SLP(c) Nos. 1113-1116 OF 1996)

PATTANAIK, J.

Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

The inter se seniority between respondents nos. 1 to 4 who had been promoted to the post of Computors on regular basis on 20.8.90 and 10.10.90 and the ad hoc appointees to the said posts respondent nos. 5 to 37 herein whose services were regularised on 14.3.1991 is the subject matter for consideration in these appeals. It transpires from the available materials on record that certain posts having been created for 1981 Census in the cadre of Computors respondents nos. 5 to 37 were appointed against those posts but even after the Census operation was over those posts continued and respondents nos. 5 to 37 were also continued.

Ultimately the Registrar General of India after due consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training regularised those appointees by letter dated 12th March, 1991, and it was also indicated that the past services rendered by them before regularisation would also count for their seniority as well as eligibility for promotion to the higher grad. Respondents nos. 1 to 4, on the other hand, had been promoted as Computors on regular basis between the period 20th August, 1990 to 10th October, 1990. When the seniority list was drawn up on 12th April, 1993 respondents nos. 5 to 37 having been placed above respondents nos. 1 to 4 a representation was made by the said respondents nos. 1 to 4. The representation having been rejected they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal at Jaipur by filling OA Nos. 93, 121, 122 and 172 of 1994. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment being of the view that the ad hoc appointees are not entitled to get their services as ad hoc for the purpose of counting the seniority since the appointment itself was dehors the rules allowed these OAs and held that respondent nos. 1 to 4 to be senior to respondents nos. 5 to 37 in the cadre of Computor. It may by noticed at this stage that the promotion of respondents nos.

1 to 4 to the post of Computor was not on a substantive basis and after expiry of the sanction of the posts of Computor created for 1991 census on account of posts of Computor created for 1991 census on account of non availability of posts of Computor in the cadre, respondents nos. 1 to 4 were reverted. The said order of reversion was assailed before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal had annulled the order of reversion. But the aforesaid order of the Tribunal being assailed in this Court by the Union of India in C.A. Nos. 9572-75 of 1995 by judgment dated 19th October, 1995 this Court came to hold that the fact of abolition of posts having been established and the respondents nos. 1 to 4 herein having been temporarily promoted to those posts, which have been abolished, they cannot raise any objection for the consequential reversal order. The order of the Tribunal was accordingly set aside and the appeal of the Union of India was allowed thereby. The order of reversion of respondents nos. 1 to 4 herein from the posts of Computor to their substantive post was approved by this Court. Though opportunity has been given to said respondents nos. 1 to 4 to indicate whether they are still continuing as Computor but no such assertion has been made. Though Mr. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents nos. 1 to 4 contended that would be a matter which would ultimately be decided only when the seniority matter is finalised we are unable to accept this contention since we find that the respondents nos. 1 to 4 are no longer continuing as Computors, their order of reversion having been up held by this Court, as already referred to, and therefore, the question of determining their inter se seniority with respondent nos. 5 to 37 in the cadre of Computor would not arise.

In the aforesaid premises, it is not necessary for us to examine the larger question as to whether the order of Registrar General directing that the services of respondents nos. 5 to 37 even prior to regularisation can be counted for the purpose of their seniority in the cadre. On the admitted position, therefore, while the respondents nos. 5 to 37 are still continuing as Computor their services having been regularised by the order of Registrar General in consultation with the Department of Personnel respondents nos. 1 to 4 have been reverted from the said cadre and necessarily therefore, respondents nos. 5 to 37 would be held to be senior in the cadre of Computors. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal in the aforesaid OAs is set aside and the appeals of the Union of India are allowed and the OAs stand dismissed.

The appeals arising out SLP@Nos. 1113-1116 of 1996 for the reasons already indicated are also allowed. But in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.