Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., A.N. RAY AND M.H. BEG, JJ.
Ram Prakash Khanna and others etc., Appellants
Versus
S.A.F. Abbas and others etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 565 and 1470 to 1474 of 1970, D/- 22-2-1972.
All India Services Act, 1951 – Section 3 - Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 – Rule 3(3)(b) – Recruitment - Recruitment of candidates - Appellants and the respondents are now members of Indian Administrative Service - For sake of brevity appellants can be described as direct recruits and respondents as promote - Direct recruits were appointed to Indian Administrative Service in the years as a result of competitive examination held for recruitment of candidates to that Service – Promotees were initially recruited to executive branch of Bihar State Civil Service and were subsequently in the years promoted to Indian Administrative Service - Whether period of officiation prior to promotion will be counted for purposes of seniority – Held, court uphold judgment of High Court that memorandum which stated that State Government could which stated that State Government could not retrospectively declare a post to be equivalent to a senior post was bad - State Government has power to make such a retrospective declaration - Order which also directed years of allotment on basis that there could not be any retrospective declaration of equivalent post cannot be sustained - High Court, further directed that promotees must continue to hold ranks as assigned to them - This order of High Court is to be set aside, for reason that year of allotment will now have to be determined by approval of the Central Government in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission - Appeals are therefore dismissed in so far as they relate to quashing of order of Central Government - Appeals are allowed setting aside order of High Court that promotees would continue to hold ranks as assigned to them - Appeals partly allowed.
Judgment
RAY, J.:- These six appeals are by certificate from the judgment dated 7 November, 1969 of the High Court at Patna quashing the order of the Government of India dated 20 September, 1967 and directing that the respondents must continue to hold rank as assigned to them in 1958.
2. The appellants and the respondents are now members of the Indian Administrative Service. For the sake of brevity the appellants can be described as direct recruits and the respondents as promotees. The direct recruits were appointed to the Indian Administrative Service in the years 1949 and 1950 as a result of competitive examination held for recruitment of candidates to that Service. The promotees were initially recruited to the executive branch of the Bihar State Civil Service and were subsequently in the years 1955 and 1956 promoted to the Indian Administrative Service.
3. The controversy in the present appeals is as to the seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees under the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954.
4. The Government of India on 3rd September, 1958 allotted to the promotees the year 1948 and placed them below the junior most amongst the direct recruits of the 1948 allotment.
5. The direct recruits thereafter made representation against the decision of the Government of India. Eventually, on 13th January, 1965 the State of Bihar forwarded the representation of the direct recruits to the Government of India against the decision made by the Government of India in the year 1958. On 4th January, 1966, the Government of India took a tentative decision to allow the representation of the direct recruits on the ground that the previous decision was on wrong facts and on wrong interpretation.
6. On 14th April, 1967 the State of Bihar represented to the Government of India to reject the representation of the direct recruits on the ground that the facts alleged by the direct recruits were wrong. On 20th September, 1967, the Government of India however allowed the representation of the direct recruits and revised the seniority of the promotees and allotted to some of the promotees the year 1950 and to some of the promotees the year 1952 as mentioned in the letter of the Government of India dated 20th September, 1967 set out hereunder:-
"The matter was further examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law, who have reiterated their earlier advice and said that Rule 2 (g) of the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 does not permit retro-active declaration of a post equivalent to a senior post of the I.A.S. The declaration made by the State Government in the present case cannot have retrospective operation. It will have prospective operation. The Government of India have therefore decided to revise the seniority of the officers concerned. It will appear from the attached statement that the relevant dates for the purposes of fixation of seniority will be 26th December, 1955 in the case of S/Sri S.C. Mishra, S.A.F. Abbas, R.S. Mandal, S.K. Sinha and S.K. Chakravarty; 1st February, 1956 in the case of Shri S. Sahay and 17th October, 1956 in the case of S/Shri Ramnand Sihna, Anwar Karim, R.C. Sinha, S. K. Ghosh and M. Alam. As Shri M. K. Mukherjee the senior most regular recruit of 1950 batch started officiating continuously in senior posts with effect from 2nd May, 1955 a date earlier than the relevant dates of S/Shri S. C. Mishra, S. A. F. Abbas, R. S. Mandal, S. K. Sinha, S. K. Chakravarty, N. P. Sinha and S. Sahay, these offers may be re-allotted to the year 1950 and may be placed before Shri S. D. Prasad (RB-1950) and above Shri P. S. Appa (RR-1951). Shri N. Nagamani, the seniormost regular recruit of 1952 batch started officiating continuously in senior posts earlier than the relevant dates of S/Shri Ramanand Sinha, Anwar Karim, R.C. Sinha, S. K. Ghosh and M. Alam. These officers may be allotted to the year 1952 and may be placed below Shri K. K. Srivastava (RR-1952) an
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
