Back
1998(3) Supreme 90
Supreme Court of India
(From CAT, Jabalpur)
S. Saghir Ahmad, D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
S.K. Mathur & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6229 of 1990
Decided on 13-1-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants, Pramod Swarup, Advocate.
For the Union of India, N.N. Goswamy, Sr. Advocate, V.K. Verma, T.G. Narayanan Nair, Advocates.
Held : After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was wholly in error in quashing the seniority list and in coming to the conclusion that a person working on deputation is not entitled to the benefit of service rendered by him in the parent department. (Para 15)
The inter se seniority of direct recruits, namely, respondents 3 to 9, and the persons brought on deputation, namely, the present appellants who were ultimately absorbed on permanent basis in the Press at Dewas, has also been erroneously decided by the Tribunal by denying them the benefit of their past service. (Para 17)
In recording the above finding, the Tribunal fell into patent error in overlooking the vital fact that the appellants who were already working as Inspector (Control) in the sister organisation had been appointed as Inspector (Control) in the Press at Dewas in pursuance of the administrative decision taken by respondents 1 and 2 as there were no recruitment rules in existence. The appellants held a permanent lien in the sister organisation and on their absorption at Dewas, their lien in the parent department was terminated. Under the circumstances, they were entitled to the benefit of service rendered by them in the parent department on identical posts. This benefit cannot be legally denied to them. The Tribunal erred in holding otherwise. (Para 21)
In addition to what has been stated above, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who had assigned seniority to the appellants on the basis of the respective dates of their confirmation, could not be said to have acted contrary to law, at least in the particular circumstances of the case where respondents 1 and 2 had to balance the equities in the matter of seniority between the appellants and respondents 3 to 9. While respondents 3 to 9 had been directly recruited in the service and after completing their apprenticeship, were placed on probation for the post of Inspector (Control), the appellants had already worked for quite a number of years on this post in their parent department where they were given notional promotion as they were on deputation in the Press as Inspector (Control) on which posts they were also confirmed earlier than respondents 3 to 9. In this situation, respondents 1 and 2 were fully justified in adopting ‘date of confirmation’ as the basis of seniority, particularly as there were no service rules regulating seniority of the persons working in the Press. On this criteria, which, in our opinion, is wholly reasonable in the facts of this case, appellants were rightly treated by respondents 1 and 2 as senior to respondents 3 to 9. (Para 26)
Viewed from any angle, the appellants have to be held as senior to respondents 3 to 9. (Para 27)
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the judgment dated 26.4.1990 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the claim petition filed by respondents 3 to 9 is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. (Para 28)
Judgment
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-The Bank Note Press, Dewas (for short, ‘the Press’), which is departmental undertaking of the Government of India and is engaged in the sovereign function of the printing of the Bank Notes, was established in 1972. The job of printing and processing of Bank Notes is said to be a unique job which requires intensive and highly technical training with impeccable integrity. According to the counter affidavit filed before us, the production of Bank Notes is completed in two parts, namely, (i) printing of Bank Note Sheets and (ii) processing of Bank Notes right from cutting of sheets into the sizes of Notes to the final delivery to Reserve Bank of India at their cash-chests. The processing wing is known as Control Wing.
2. Since at the time of its establishment, the Press did not have its own cadres of various posts, including the post of Inspector (Control), nor were any Recruitment Rules made for these posts, it approached the Government of India for certain posts in the Control Wing being sanctioned and on its request the Government of India sanctioned 20 posts in the grade of Inspector (Control). Since it was felt that it would not be safe or possible to entrust the responsibilities of processing and final supply of Bank Notes to the Reserve Bank of India, to raw hands, namely the new recruits, the Press, in consultation with the Ministry of Finance decided to fill up 50 posts of Inspector (Control) from qualified and trained persons working in the sister organisations, namely the India Security Press, Nasik Road, as also the Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad, and the remaining 50 by direct recruitment. Consequently, the Press issued a requisition letter dated 1.6.1972 to the sister organisations, including the India Security Press, Nasik Road, for sponsoring the names of the candidates willing to take up the appointment as Inspector (Control), for which the eligibility criteria was five years’ experience as Asstt. Inspector (Control).
3. The appellants, who were appointed as Asstt. Inspector (Control) at the India Security Press, Nasik Road, on the following dates, applied for appointment as Inspector (Control) in the Press and were appointed on those posts on deputation on the dates mentioned below:
S.No. Name (S/Shri) Date of appointment as Date of initial appointment in Asstt. Inspector (Control) Bank Note Press on deputa- in India Security Press, tion Nasik Road.
1. S.K. Mathur 9.2.1961 9.2.1973
2. M. Laxminarayan 28.7.1961 9.2.1973
3. H.R. Sharma 16.1.1962 3.10.1973
4. V.P. Bhalla 22.7.1965 3.10.1973
5. S.B. Deshmukh 7.1.1966 3.10.1973
6. S.B. Khadilkar 7.6.1962 10.1.19744. In the meantime, all the appellants were promoted, though notionally, on the posts of Inspector (Control) in their parent department during the period 1974-1975 and confirmed on those posts.
5. The Central Government, by its notification dated 20.11.1974. promulgated the Bank Note Press (Class III posts) Recruitment Rules, 1974, for the posts of Inspector (Control), made by the President under Article 309 of the Constitution. The mode of recruitment indicated in these Rules was that the posts of Inspector (Contro
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
