Judgment

K. Venkataswami, J.-In all these appeals a common issue arises for consideration and decision. Hence they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. By way of sample, the facts in the case of Onkar Chand (Civil Appeal No. 68/90) are given. The said Onkar Chand originally belonged to Himachal Pradesh State Police and came on deputation to the Intel­ligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affiars, Govt. of India on 17.8.1970 as JIO-I (Junior Intelligence Officer, Grade-I). He continued as such until he was promoted against deputation quota to the next higher rank of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer, Grade-II (for short ‘ACIO-II’) by an order dated 11.10.1977. Factually, he took charge of the said post on 2.1.1978. He was absorbed permanently in the Intelligence Bureau by an order dated 10.12.1980 with effect from 31.12.1977 as JIO-I. His services in the grade of ACIO-II were regularised with effect from 1.1.1985 by an order of even date.

3. His grievance was that his seniority in the grade of ACIO-II was reckoned from 1.1.1985, the date of regularisation in that cadre, and not from 11.10.1977, the date on which he was promoted to that rank. It was his case that his services even as deputationist in the posts of JIO-I and ACIO-II should be taken for reckoning seniority.

4. The next promotion from ACIO-II was to the post of ACIO-I. The minimum service required in the cadre of ACIO-II for promotion to the post of ACIO-I was complete five years. The appellants promoted him as ACIO-I only on 2.1.1990 on the ground that the said Onkar Chand was regularised in the cadre of ACIO-II with effect from 1.1.1985. Accord­ing to the said Onkar Chand, he should have been considered with effect from the date on which he joined the post of ACIO-II on 2.1.1978, if not from the date of his promotion, namely, 11.10.1977, by counting his seniority accordingly. All his claims to that effect before the authorities concerned did not yield the desired results which obliged the said Onkar Chand to move the Tribunal for a direc­tion to the authorities that his seniority in the cadre of ACIO-II should be fixed after counting his service from 2.1.1978 in that grade and consequently he should be eligible for being considered for future promotion on the said basis.

4. The appellants opposed the claim of the said Onkar Chand by con­tending that according to the general principles of seniority, as per the Memo issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the seniority of transferees was determined from the date they were appointed on trans­fer basis in the Department. When so appointed on transfer basis, the transferees will be placed below all departmental officers promoted earlier than the date of the absorption of the transferees permanently in the Intelligence Bureau in the grade of JIO-I. In the case of Onkar Chand, he was permanently absorbed as JIO-I only on 10.12.1980 w.e.f. 31.12.1977. His services earlier to 31.12.1977, according to the appellants, in the Intelligence Bureau in the capacity of deputation­ist will not be taken into account for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of JIO-I. On the absorption of Onkar Chand permanently w.e.f. 31-12-1977, he will be placed junior-most in that cadre and the sen­iority will be counted accordingly. Though, in the meanwhile, he was promoted as ACIO-II on ad hoc basis against the deputation quota, his turn for regular promotion as ACIO-II will come only in the year 1984 as his junior departmental JIOs were promoted on the basis of 1984 DPC.

5. The Tribunal was not impressed by the contentions put forward on behalf of the appellants. Purporting to follow a decision of this Court in Narendra Chadha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.1 , it took the view that when a person has been allowed to function in a higher post for many years on ad hoc basis, it would be unjust to hold that he has no sort of claim to such post. The Tribunal has proceeded that such a view has been taken in other case and purporting to