1. Service seniority — Past service in different department — Claim for counting prior service for seniority in new department. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1729
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Agrawal : G.B.Pattanaik
Dev Raj Gupta
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 2358 of 1999
Date of Decision : 11/2/00
Seniority in a service governed by statutory rules requiring continuous appointment within that service cannot be claimed based on previous service rendered in a different department or organization.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 309 - Punjab Excise and Taxation Department Subordinate Officers (Ministerial Class III Service Rules) - Rules 2(h), 3 and 10 - Determination of seniority - Seniority to be counted from the date of continuous appointment in the service - Past service rendered in a different department cannot be counted for seniority in a new service governed by specific statutory rules. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
An employee who served as a clerk in a judicial office was appointed as a clerk in a taxation department after a selection process. The employee claimed that the past services rendered in the previous judicial office should be counted for the purpose of determining seniority in the taxation department. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that past services cannot be counted for seniority.
Findings of Court:
The recruitment to the posts in the taxation department is governed by statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Under Rule 10 of the relevant rules, seniority is determined by the dates of continuous appointment in the service. As the employee joined the service based on a specific letter of appointment, any services rendered prior to that date in another department cannot qualify for counting towards seniority.
Issues: Whether past service rendered in one department can be counted for the purpose of seniority in another department when the latter's seniority is governed by statutory rules based on continuous appointment in that specific service.
Ratio Decidendi: When the seniority of members of a service is determined by statutory provisions based on the date of continuous appointment within that specific service, service rendered prior to such appointment in any other department or organization cannot be counted for seniority purposes.
Result: Civil appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contended appointment was a transfer, thus prior service should count for seniority; respondent opposed. (Para 3 )
3. Court held appointment was recruitment under statutory rules; prior service in different department cannot count for seniority. (Para 3 )
4. Under statutory rules, seniority is determined by continuous service from appointment; prior service in another department is irrelevant. (Para 3 )
5. Civil appeal dismissed; no infirmity found in High Court judgment. (Para 3 )
6. Can prior service in a different government department be counted for seniority upon recruitment to another department?
No, under statutory rules governing the new department, seniority is determined by the date of continuous appointment in that service, not prior service elsewhere. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT
G.B.PATTANAIK, J.
(1) THE appellant assails the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appellant originally had been appointed as a clerk in the Office of the District & Sessions Judge in the year 1967. Having continued as a clerk in that office till 1976 and a post of clerk in the Office of Deputy Commissioner of Excise and Taxation having fallen vacant, he applied for the said post and on being duly selected he was issued a letter of appointment on 4th of January, 1977 which reads thus:
"ORDER Shri Dev Raj Gupta, Reader in the Court of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Gidderbaha is hereby appointed as clerk against the vacant post. Sd/- (Ram Rattan) Bhatinda Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner dated 4th January, 1977. Distt. Bhatinda. No. 10844 Estt. Dated .1977 A copy is forwarded to the District & Sessions Judge, Faridkot for information with reference to his Memo No. 4091 dated 17/12/76. He is requested to relieve Shri Dev Raj Gupta, Reader in the Court of Subordinate Sub Judge 1st Class Gidderbaha and direct him to join this office at the earliest. Sd/- (Ram Rattan) Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner Distt. Bhatinda. No. 10845-46 Estt. Dated 6/11/76"
(2) HAVING joined the Office of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, he claimed that his past services rendered in the Office of the District & Sessions Judge should be counted for the purpose of his seniority in the rank of clerks in the Office of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The same having not been acceded to by the employer, he approached the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that the past services cannot be counted for the purpose of his seniority and as such dismissed the writ petition. It is against this order the appellant has approached this Court.
(3) IT is contended before us that though the order of appointment indicates to be a case of recruitment but factually it was a case of transfer from one department to the other and therefore the appellant is entitled to count the past service rendered by him in the Office of the District & Sessions Judge for the purpose of seniority,in the Office of Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. We are unable to accept this submission of the "earned Counsel for the appellant. The recruitment to the different posts in the Office of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner is governed by a set of Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India called "The Punjab Excise and Taxation Department Subordinate Officers (Ministerial Class III Service Rules". "Service" has been defined in Rule 2(h) to mean the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department Subordinate Offices (Ministerial) Class III Service. Rule 3 indicates that the service shall comprise of the posts shown in Appendix-A. Rule 10 is the Rule determining the seniority which states that the seniority inter se of the members of the services shall be determined by the dates of their continuous appointments in the service. In that view of the aforesaid statutory provision dealing with the seniority of the members of the service, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the past period rendered by the appellant in the Office of the District & Sessions Judge should also be counted for the purpose of seniority. The appellant must be held to have joined the services only on the basis of the letter of appointment on 4th January, 1977 and therefore, any services rendered prior to that date in any other department/organization cannot qualify for counting the seniority of the appellant in the office of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The civil appeal is accordingly dismissed.
