SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 851

2010 (6) Supreme 532
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Ch. Narayana Rao — Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.7903 of 2010
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.16355 of 2007]
Decided on : 10-9-2010

IMPORTANT PONT
Officiation in ad hoc post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.

Headnote:Service Law – Seniority – Initial appointment only ad hoc and not according to rules – Made as a stop-gap arrangement – Officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (Para 15)

        (1990) 2 SCC 715; (1993) 3 SCC 371 – Relied upon

        (2000) 8 SCC 25; (1984) 4 SCC 450; (1986) 2 SCC 157; (2009) 4 SCC 170 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

        1. The Appellant’s Original Application claiming seniority for the period he had worked on ad-hoc basis till his regularisation was rejected by CAT.

        2. The order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

        No relief can be granted to the Appellant

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Deepak Verma, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. The continual riven for seniority with regard to ad-hoc service rendered by the Appellant from the year 1981 till his regularisation in the year 1992 is required to be adjudicated in this Appeal by this Court. Further, we are called upon to consider whether the Appellant can be treated as Regular Stenographer (OG - Ordinary Grade) from the year 1981 itself.

3. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 19.02.2007 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in Appellant’s Writ Petition No. 388 of 2002, wherein and whereunder he had challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘Tribunal’) passed in O.A. No. 413 of 1999 dated 02.07.2001. By the order of the Tribunal, the Appellant’s Original Application filed by him claiming seniority for the period he had worked on ad-hoc basis till his regularisation was rejected. The order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Appellant’s Writ Petition vide the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal.

4. Factual matrix of the case lies in narrow compass:-

Appellant was appointed on 26.11.1981 on the post of Stenographer (OG). His appointment was against a temporary vacancy of stenographer, with the following rider:

“His appointment is purely on an ad-hoc and temporary basis and his services may be terminated any time without assigning any reasons.”

5. Thus, his letter of appointment clearly stipulated that it was not only ad-hoc but temporary too, terminable at any time without assigning any reasons. However, he continued in service, but after few years, an apprehension arose in the mind of the Appellant and other similarly situated stenographers that their services may be terminated. Thus, the Appellant and others were constrained to approach the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal by filing Original Application, claiming that the Respondent be restrained from terminating their services and they be regularised. Tribunal vide its order dated 23.10.1989 directed that the services of the Appellant and other similarly situated stenographers, be not terminated, instead they be regularised subject to qualifying requisite test. The operative part of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“The Government may examine and review the position as whether it is possible to regularize the services of these petitioners by relaxing the rule requiring their recruitment through the Staff Selection Commission. If it is not considered feasible by the Government, then we direct that the petitioners should be continued in service and the respondents are restrained from terminating their services but two opportunities be given to the petitioners to attain proficiency in Stenography and clear the test with the requisite standard of speed in shorthand etc. before their regularisation. In other words their appointments as stenographers will be treated as officiating appointment although not confirmed but also not ad-hoc pending such a regularisation.”

6. It is clear from a reading of the aforesaid direction that the Respondents were restrained from terminating the services of the Appellant and two opportunities were directed to be given to the Appellant to clear proficiency test so that he becomes entitled for regularisation. On the strength of the said order of Tribunal, his services were not terminated and he continued in employment with the Respondents.

7. He, thereafter, qualified the proficiency test in Stenography conducted by the Staff Selection Commission in 1992. Thus, he was regularised with effect from 12.04.1992, the date on which he was declared successful in the test. 50% of his past service was also ordered to be counted for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits.

8. Aggrieved, Appellant submitted his representation with the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bh























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top