1. Service dispute regarding retrospective seniority and promotion benefits for an employee who was on deputation during the period relevant to a judicial precedent. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 604
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NARAYAN YESHWANT GORE
versus
Union of India
Decide on April 26, 1995
Important Points
The court held that an employee on deputation is 'similarly situated' to those in the parent department for seniority benefits. If a precedent grants substantive appointment from the ad hoc date to parent department employees, this benefit extends to deputed employees to prevent prejudice due to their deputation.
Subject
Employment Law - Promotions and Seniority
Headnote
National Sample Survey Organisation – Appellant joined National Sample Survey Organisation as Inspector promoted as a Scrutiny Inspector further appointed as Assistant Superintendent came to be deputed to Census Department at Nagpur and worked there from granted pro forma promotion in his parent department post of Tabulator was subsequently redesignated as Superintendent – Appellant while working in Census Department was promoted as Assistant Director of Census operation and continued till was working there a question arose about his consideration in parent department which has been extracted by tribunal indicates that department considered that since appellant was in Census Department and there were short-term vacancies not necessary to offer post to appellant or to ask him to come back to department circumstances he continued in Census Department – Held, Narrated above clearly indicate that appellant was similarly situated along with those who were granted benefit by this court – Maybe he was working in Census Department the post in Census Department and in parent department was ad hoc post and the Department itself considered that his continuance in Census Department did not affect him and was not offered post of Assistant Director in the parent department, he could not be prejudiced benefit given in Narender Chadha, therefore, should be extended to appellant and he too should be deemed to have been working as Assistant Director on ad hoc basis in parent Department in Grade should be deemed to have been confirmed from the date his junior was confirmed – Appeal is accordingly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
A.K.Sanghi, A.N.JAYARAM, C.V.SUBBA RAO, SUSHMA SURI, T.C.SHARMA
A.K.Sanghi, A.N.JAYARAM, C.V.SUBBA RAO, SUSHMA SURI, T.C.SHARMA
Table of Contents
2. Whether benefits granted to ad hoc appointees in the parent department under a judicial precedent extend to an employee who was on deputation during that period. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. The court found that deputation did not prejudice the appellant as the parent department had deemed his continuance in the other department not to affect him. (Para 3 )
4. Employees on deputation are similarly situated to those in the parent department for seniority benefits if the deputation was not prejudicial to their promotion prospects. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed; appellant granted retrospective seniority and promotion to Assistant Director and Deputy Director, including all consequential retirement benefits. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
6. Does deputation to another department preclude an employee from receiving seniority benefits granted to similarly situated officers in the parent department?
No. If the parent department considers that the employee's continuance on deputation does not prejudice their prospects or affect their consideration for promotion, the employee is deemed similarly situated and entitled to the same benefits. (Para 3 )
7. How is seniority handled when a junior is promoted based on a judicial precedent deeming ad hoc appointments as substantive?
If an employee is senior to a junior who was granted substantive status from a specific date via judicial precedent, the senior employee is similarly entitled to that status and subsequent promotional posts. (Para 3 , 4 )
8. Are retired employees entitled to benefits resulting from a retrospective grant of seniority and promotion?
Yes, a retired employee is entitled to all benefits that flow from a court order granting retrospective seniority and promotion. (Para 6 )
( 1 ). This appeal is directed against the order passed by the central Administrative tribunal rejecting the petition filed by the appellant for granting and extending to him the same benefits as were granted to the persons similarly situate in view of the decision given by this court in Narender Chadha v. Union of India.
( 2 ). The brief facts that are necessary to be mentioned are that the appellant joined National Sample Survey Organisation as Inspector on 25/7/1950. He was promoted as a Scrutiny Inspector on 4/11/1954. He was further appointed as Assistant Superintendent in 1955. On 6/3/1961, he came to be deputed to the Census Department at Nagpur and worked there from 6/3/1961 to 21/10/1969 as a Tabulation Officer. Then he was granted pro forma promotion in his parent department. The post of Tabulator was subsequently redesignated as Superintendent. The appellant while working in the Census Department was promoted as Assistant Director of Census operation w. e. f. 21-10-1969 and continued till 31/12/1974. While he was working there a question arose about his consideration in the parent department. A letter dated 21/1/1970 which has been extracted by the tribunal indicates that department considered that since the appellant was in the Census Department and there were short-term vacancies only, it was not necessary to offer the post to the appellant or to ask him to come back to the department. In these circumstances, he continued in Census Department. He could not be given even pro forma promotion as there was no regular vacancy. But his appointment as Assistant Director in the Census Department was with the concurrence of the Census Department, parent department and the Union public service commission, In 1975, he came back to his parent department and was appointed as Assistant Director on 11/4/1975 on ad hoc basis. While he was on deputation in the Census Department his juniors had also been promoted as ad hoc in his parent department. Some of them were appointed in 1969. On 11/2/1986 the decision in Narender Chadha was rendered by this court. It was held thatall those officers who were appointed as Assistant Directors in the Organisation should be deemed to have been appointed substantively from the date of their ad hoc appointment. In consequence of this decision, those juniors who had been appointed on ad hoc basis in the parent department between 1969-75 became senior to the appellant. Reason for it was that the decision has confined the applicability of benefit to only those who were working in the Department. Since the appellant was working in the Census Department and he was appointed ad hoc in the parent department from 1975, he was appointed substantively from that date only. The appellant, therefore, was left with no option except to approach the tribunal which has recorded every finding in favour of the appellant but expressed its inability to grant any relief as in view of the decision of this court he could not be deemed to be ad hoc appointee in the Department.
( 3 ). The facts narrated above clearly indicate that the appellant was similarly situated along with those who were granted benefit by this court. Maybe, he was working in the Census Department. But since the post in the Census Department and in the parent department was ad hoc post and the Department itself considered that his continuance in the Census Department did not affect him and, therefore, he was not offered the post of Assistant Director in the parent department, he could not be prejudiced. The benefit given in Narender Chadha, therefore, should be extended to the appellant and he too should be deemed to have been working as Assistant Director on ad hoc basis in the parent Department in Grade IV since October 1969. He should be deemed to have been confirmed from the date his junior was confirmed.
( 4 ). We further find that Shri Chaurasia, one of the juniors of the appellant was promoted as ad hoc on 22/5/1986 after the decision was give
