Back
2009(2) Supreme 447
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Union of India — Appellant
versus
Dharam Pal etc. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 948 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5094 of 2006)
Decided on : 12-02-2009
(b)Indian Railway Establishment Manual – Rule 216 – Ad hoc promotion – Effect of Rule 302, as also the date from which seniority has to be reckoned, are factors to be considered. (Para 14)
(2000) 4 SCC 20 – Distinguished.
(c)Service Law – Seniority – Seniority is reckoned from the date of appointment and not from the date of confirmation – Where the initial appointment is only ad hoc, the period of officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (Para 14)
(1990) 2 SCC 715; (2001) 5 SCC 581; (1993) 3 SCC 371; (2000) 4 SCC 476; (2008) 1 SCC 747 – Relied upon.
(1997) 11 SCC 619 – Distinguished.
(d)Service Law – Promotion – Relaxation – Power of relaxation, even if specifically provided in the rules, cannot be exercised arbitrarily. (Para 16)
(2006) 8 SCC 671 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1. Respondents herein joined the Railway services as Signal Khalasis in S & T Department, Delhi Division, Northern Railway in the year 1970. The next promotional post was the one of Material Checking Clerk (MCC).
2.Respondents could be appointed in the post MCC only in terms of the procedure of selection laid down therein.
3. On and from 5.9.1986, the respondents and several other employees were allowed to officiate on ad hoc basis as MCC. Indisputably, for the said purpose, the mandatory procedure for promotion as contained in Rule 219 had not been followed.
4. Those clerks appointed on officiating basis in an ad hoc manner made representations before the General Manager, Northern Railways for their promotion on regular basis. On or about 8.5.1987, a decision was taken that services of those who had completed three years’ ad hoc appointment may be regularized on the basis of service record and viva-voce test as a one time dispensation and it was treated as a special case and not to be treated as a precedent. As the respondents had not completed three years’ ad hoc service at the relevant time, their cases were not considered. Another representation was made by them on 4.4.1990 on the premise that at that time they had completed three years of ad hoc service. The said representation was rejected.
5.An Original Application was filed by them before the Central Administrative Tribunal which allowed it.
6. Appellant challenged the aforesaid decision by filing writ petitions before the High Court, which by reason of the impugned judgment, have been dismissed.
Finding of the Court :
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.Union of India is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 13.7.2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8457/2000, 8458/2000 and 8489/2000.
3.Respondents herein joined the Railway services as Signal Khalasis in S & T Department, Delhi Division, Northern Railway in the year 1970. The next promotional post was the one of Material Checking Clerk (MCC). The terms and conditions of service are governed by Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM). Rule 174 of IREM regulates procedure for appointment to Class-III (Group-C) posts i.e. Office Clerk. It provides that the vacancies in the said category are to be filled from two sources (i) 66-2/3% by direct recruitment through the agency of the Railway Recruitment Boards; and (ii) 33-1/3% by promotion by selection of specified Group ‘D’ staff. We are concerned with the second one.
4.Respondents, thus, could be appointed in the post MCC only in terms of the procedure of selection laid down therein. The selection procedure for appointment in the grade of Office Clerk is laid down in Chapter II, Section B of the IREM and as per Rule 219 therein, the selection procedure consists of written test and interviews. In the written test 50% of the questions are to be of objective type.
5.On and from 5.9.1986, the respondents and several other employees were allowed to officiate on ad hoc basis as MCC. Indisputably, for the said purpose, the mandatory procedure for promotion as contained in Rule 219 had not been followed. Even some of the employees, it is stated before us, had been working on officiating basis even prior to them.
The appointment letter reads as under:
“Sub: Adhoc promotion as MCC grade 260-400 (Rs.) under SI (9)-SID/I, and UMB II and DI/D- I, SRE.
The following senior most Khalasi grade 196-232 (Rs.) under the control of DST/UMB are hereby allowed to officiate as MCC Gr. 260-400 Rs. on purely ad hoc basis against the existing vacancies.
1.Sh. Dharam Pal Kh. Under I/D-I/UMB.
2.Sh. Rakesh Kumar. Kh. Under SI (D)/II/UMB.
3.Sh. Ashok Kumar under SI/D/I/SRF
They will draw Rs.260/- per month in grade 260-400 from the date of their resumption. They will not confer upon them/any right for future promotion. They will be reverted on arrival of selected candidates.
Note:- This has approval of Sr. DSTE, New Delhi
Sd/- for Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, New Delhi.”
6.Those clerks appointed on officiating basis in an ad hoc manner made representations before the General Manager, Northern Railways for their promotion on regular basis. On or about 8.5.1987, a decision was taken that services of those who had completed three years’ ad hoc appointment may be regularized on the basis of service record and viva-voce test as a one time dispensation and it was treated as a special case and not to be treated as a precedent. As the respondents had not completed three years’ ad hoc service at the relevant time, their cases were not considered. Another representation was made by them on 4.4.1990 on the premise that at that time they had completed three years of ad hoc service. The said representation was rejected.
An Original Application was filed by them before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”) praying for issuance of a direction upon the appellant to regularize their services as MCC and to give the benefit of continuous ad hoc officiation towards seniority from the date they had been working as MCC and promote them further to the post of UDC from the date they became eligible therefor. It is stated that the employees of Ambala Division had also been given the benefit of the said concession.
7.Indisputably, respondents took part in the selection process for appointment in the post of MCC although they had completed more than three years of service. Viva-voce test was conducted. They were, thus, considered for appointment. Out of the employees who had appeared in the
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
