Back
2000 Supreme(SC) 2051
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[CITED CASE]
G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.)
(Record of Proceedings)
P. MOHAN REDDY - Appellant
Versus
E.A.A.CHARLES AND OTHERS - Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos. 3056, 3055 and 3054 of 1998
Decided on December 14, 2000
The court addressed whether seniority determined under old rules could be redetermined under new rules issued under Article 309, noting a principle that such redetermination may be permissible if no promotions from that cadre have yet occurred.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 309 - Inter se seniority - Re-determination of seniority based on amended rules - Whether seniority already determined under previous rules requires re-determination under subsequent rules - Principle that where no promotion has occurred from the cadre, seniority of officers may be determined in accordance with amended rules despite previous determinations.
Facts of the case:
The dispute concerns the re-determination of inter se seniority of officers in a cadre following the implementation of amended rules in 1992 issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, whereas seniority had previously been determined under 1961 rules.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that although the new rules did not appear to have retrospective effect, a prior ruling by a three-judge bench had observed that if no promotions had been made from the cadre, seniority could be redetermined under amended rules even if it had been previously determined under previous orders or rules.
Issues: Whether seniority already determined under earlier rules must be redetermined in accordance with subsequent amended rules issued under the proviso to Article 309.
Ratio Decidendi: Since a three-judge bench has previously addressed the principle of redetermining seniority in similar circumstances, it is appropriate that the current matter also be adjudicated by a three-judge bench.
Result: Case to be listed before a three-Judge Bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
service law
- seniority
- rules under article 309
-
service law
ORDER
The question of re-determination of inter se seniority of the Deputy Tahsildars in Andhra Pradesh pursuant to the amended Rules of 1992 is the subject-matter of challenge in these appeals. This Court upheld the validity of Rule 4-E of the earlier Rules of 1961 and only struck down the retrospective operation of the provision and directed that the Rules should be given prospective effect as reported in KY. Subba Rao v. Govt. of A.P.2 By the subsequent rule of 1992 which is also amended rule under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the entire principle appears to have been changed and the question for determination is whether the seniority of officers in the cadre already determined pursuant to the 1961 Rules is required to be redetermined in accordance with the Rules of 1992 . On the face of it, the Rule does not purport to have been given any retrospective a
effect. Mr Mishra appearing for the promotees, however, brought to our notice a three-Judge Bench judgment in the case of Wing Commander J. Kumar v. Union of India in which certain observations have been made in para 17 which stipulate that if there has not been any promotion from the cadre then the seniority of the officers concerned in the cadre could be determined in accordance with the amended rules which had already been b determined in accordance with previous orders/rules. Be it stated that in that case there were no rules under proviso to Article 309 for determination of seniority prior to the impugned rule under consideration but the seniority was being determined under certain administrative orders and the same principle has been incorporated in the Rule. In view of the aforesaid judgment of a three-Judge Bench, we think it appropriate that this case also should be listed before a three-Judge Bench as early as possible.
Court Masters
