1. Dispute regarding inter se seniority and absorption of an employee deputed to a higher post in another department. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 72
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.
T. Shantharam, Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka and others, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No.922 of 1995 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14114 of 1994)
Decided on 16-1-1995.
Important Points
The Court held that where an employee has served uninterruptedly in a higher post while on deputation and performed duties satisfactorily, it would be unjust to deny absorption or seniority based on technical rules requiring deputation to be to an equivalent post.
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Employment
Headnote
Constitution Of India,1950 - Revenue Department - Food and Civil Supplies Department - Appellant was appointed in Revenue Department as Second Division Clerk in Mangalore on - He was sent on deputation to Food and Civil Supplies Department which was then part of Revenue Department as Assistant Civil Supplies Inspector on and was promoted as Second Grade Civil Supplies Inspector which is stated to be equivalent to respondent was appointed as a Second Division Clerk Food Wing of Revenue Department- Thereafter he was as Second Division Clerk and was promoted From these clear that at all levels of appointments and promotions appellant was always senior to 5th respondent- But one that remains on record is that Food Wing of Revenue Department- When he was sought to be repatriated appellant filed Application before Administrative Tribunal Bangalore- Tribunal by its order directed absorption of appellant in Food Department as indicated in order which -Held, Appear from record that respondent also promoted as Assistant Director- only question is of inter se seniority between appellant and respondent- senior counsel for respondent contended that Rules prescribed that on deputation post should be post equivalent to which he was holding in parent department and appellant cannot be transferred and deputed in Food Wing on higher post than post held in parent department- Though there is force in contention as per Rules but meat of matter is that appellant uninterruptedly worked in Food department till date of order by Tribunal circumstances though initially he might have mistakenly been deputed to hold higher post Food & Civil Supplies Department since appellant had obviously discharged his duties and higher responsibilities to satisfaction of all concerned at this distance of time it is highly unjust send him back to hold post in parent department which he was entitled to hold and Tribunal is not right to interfere with action of department in its absorption of appellant per its own earlier order- direction given by Tribunal at instance respondent in impugned order is accordingly set aside and order issued in earlier proceedings stands confirmed - Appeal allowed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
G.K.NARASIMHA, GIRISH ANANTHAMURTHY, K.Madhava Reddy, K.V.VIJAYAKUMAR, M.VIRAPPA, Navin Singh, RAMA JOISE, S.N.BHATT
G.K.NARASIMHA, GIRISH ANANTHAMURTHY, K.Madhava Reddy, K.V.VIJAYAKUMAR, M.VIRAPPA, Navin Singh, RAMA JOISE, S.N.BHATT
Table of Contents
2. Whether deputation to a post higher than the one held in the parent department precludes absorption in that higher post under service rules. (Para 2 )
3. Long-term uninterrupted service and satisfactory discharge of higher responsibilities justify absorption despite initial mistakes in deputation rank. (Para 2 )
4. Satisfactory performance of higher responsibilities over a prolonged period during deputation can override technical rules regarding post equivalence for absorption. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed; absorption and promotion upheld; order setting aside absorption is quashed. (Para 2 )
6. Can an employee be absorbed in a higher post if they were mistakenly deputed to a rank higher than their parent department?
Yes, if the employee has worked uninterruptedly in the department and discharged higher responsibilities satisfactorily, it is considered unjust to revert them to the parent department's rank. (Para 2 )
7. How does the court treat technical rule violations regarding post equivalence during deputation?
The court may prioritize equity and the actual discharge of duties over strict rule adherence when an employee has served in a higher capacity for a significant duration. (Para 2 )
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
2. The facts are telling that the appellant was appointed in the Revenue Department as Second Division Clerk in Mangalore on October 8, 1963, He was sent on deputation to the Food and Civil Supplies Department which was then part of Revenue Department as Assistant Civil Supplies Inspector on December 26, 1967 and was promoted as Second Grade Civil Supplies Inspector on September 11, 1968 which is stated to be equivalent to Sheristedar. The 5th respondent Mr. R. K. Vasude v. was appointed as a Second Division Clerk on January 22,1965 in Food Wing of the Revenue Department. Thereafter he was regularised as Second Division Clerk on September 30, 1971 and was promoted as a Sheristedar on June 17, 1982. From these facts, it is clear that at all levels of appointments and promotions, the appellant was always senior to 5th respondent. But one fact that remains on record is that the Food Wing of Revenue Department. When he was sought to be repatriated, the appellant filed Application No.6432/86 before the Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. The Tribunal by its order dated January 28, 1988 directed absorption of the appellant in the Food Department as indicated in the order which reads thus : -
"Since the applicant is working in the Food and Civil Supplies Department since 1966 about 32 years and he has not been given any pro forma promotion in the Revenue Department and there are no valid ground to reject his request for absorption, we are of the considered opinion that the Applicant is entitled for a direction to the respondents to absorb him in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies in the post now held by him. It is ordered accordingly after quashing Annexure A."
Subsequent thereto it would appear that the appellant was absorbed and he was placed above the 5th respondent and also promoted on January 1,1980 as a Assistant Director. It would also appear from the record that the 5th respondent also promoted as Assistant Director. The only question is of inter se seniority between the appellant and the 5th respondent. Shri Rama Jois, learned senior counsel for the respondent contended that the Rules prescribed that on the deputation the post should be the post equivalent to which he was holding in the parent department and the appellant cannot be transferred and deputed in the Food Wing on higher post than the post held in the parent department. Though there is force in the contention as per the Rules but meat of the matter is that the appellant uninterruptedly worked in the Food department till date of the order by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, though initially he might have mistakenly been deputed to hold higher post in the Food & Civil Supplies Department, since the appellant had obviously discharged his duties and higher responsibilities to the satisfaction of all concerned, at this distance of time,it is highly unjust to send him back to hold the post in the parent department which he was entitled to hold and the Tribunal is not right to interfere with action of the department in its absorption of the appellant as per its own earlier order. The direction given by the Tribunal at the instance of 5th respondent in the impugned order dated July 10, 1994 is accordingly set aside and the order issued in the earlier proceedings stands confirmed. In consequence the order of absorption and the promotion given to the appellant stand upheld. The appeal is allowed. No Costs.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation: AIR 1995 SC 1123
