Ad Hoc Service as Scientist ‘B’ Must Be Reckoned for Promotion Eligibility: Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Ad Hoc Service as Scientist ‘B’ Counts Towards Promotion Eligibility

New Delhi, March 5, 2025 – In a significant judgment impacting service law, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that ad hoc service rendered as Scientist ‘B’ must be reckoned for determining eligibility for promotion to the post of Scientist ‘C’. The bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar allowed the appeal of S.N. Sharma against the Union of India, setting aside the orders of the Delhi High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

Background of the Case

The case originated from a grievance raised by S.N. Sharma , an employee of the Central Soil & Material Research Station (CSMRS), concerning the lack of promotional avenues for Research Assistants and Assistant Research Officers (AROs). After initial success at the CAT in 2004, the matter reached the Delhi High Court. In 2010 and 2011, the High Court directed the Union of India to grant a one-time relaxation and appoint existing AROs, including Sharma , to the re-designated post of Scientist ‘B’. Complying with these directives, Sharma was appointed as Scientist ‘B’ on an ad hoc basis in April 2011 and regularized in January 2012.

The dispute arose when the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) clarified in 2014 that ad hoc service as Scientist ‘B’ would not be counted for the mandatory three years of qualifying service needed for promotion to Scientist ‘C’. This led Sharma to file further litigation, eventually reaching the Supreme Court after unfavorable orders from the CAT and High Court.

Arguments Presented

Appellant ( S.N. Sharma )’s Argument:

Represented by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh , the appellant argued that the initial CAT order and subsequent High Court directives mandated the creation of Scientist ‘B’ posts to address stagnation. The ad hoc appointment as Scientist ‘B’ was a direct consequence of these court orders and should be considered qualifying service. Excluding this period would negate the spirit of the earlier judgments aimed at providing promotional opportunities. It was contended that the Union of India, having acted on the High Court’s observations, was estopped from taking a contrary stance now.

Respondent (Union of India)’s Argument:

The Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, relied on DoPT communications stating that ad hoc service does not qualify as regular service for promotion eligibility. They argued that ad hoc appointments are temporary arrangements and cannot be equated with regular service for the purpose of promotion criteria. They also pointed to Sharma ’s alleged reluctance to return from a deputation in Bhutan and accept the Scientist ‘C’ post as evidence against his claim.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

The Supreme Court emphatically sided with the appellant, criticizing the Union of India for contradicting its own actions and previous court orders. The judgment highlighted several key points:

• Estoppel: The court noted that the Union of India, having abolished the ARO posts and created Scientist ‘B’ posts following High Court observations, could not now argue against the consequences of these actions. The court stated, "when the Union of India has in its wisdom deemed fit to abolish the post of ARO… are estopped from taking any contrary stand."
• Spirit of Previous Orders: The judgment underscored the High Court's 2011 direction to consider treating ad hoc promotions to Scientist ‘B’ as service rendered in that post for promotion eligibility. The Supreme Court observed that this direction, "having not been challenged or in other words, having virtually accepted the same, the respondents cannot turn around to take a contrary stand."
• Purpose of Ad Hoc Promotion: The court recognized that the ad hoc promotions to Scientist ‘B’ were intended to address stagnation and create promotional avenues. Excluding this period would defeat this very purpose. The judgment stated, "it is only to avoid the stagnation and there being no promotional avenues, the rule came to be amended… it was re-named as Scientist ‘B’."
• Rejection of Respondent's Counter-Argument: The court dismissed the respondent's argument regarding Sharma 's deputation and alleged refusal to join as Scientist ‘C’. The court pointed out that Sharma had already completed three years of service (including ad hoc period) by the time of his deputation, rendering this argument invalid.

Final Order and Implications

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the orders of the CAT and High Court. The court directed the respondents to consider S.N. Sharma 's ad hoc service as Scientist ‘B’ from April 27, 2011, to January 3, 2012, as qualifying service for promotion to Scientist ‘C’. The Union of India has been given twelve weeks to comply with the order.

This judgment sets a significant precedent for service law, particularly concerning the reckoning of ad hoc service for promotion. It emphasizes that government bodies must adhere to the spirit of court orders and cannot take contradictory stances that undermine the intended benefits of those orders. The ruling provides relief to S.N. Sharma and potentially to similarly situated employees facing issues with the recognition of ad hoc service for career advancement.