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

2015 Supreme(SC) 308

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTT. & R.E.S. – APPELLANT
VERSUS
NARENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3348 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.18683 OF 2004) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3349 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.8330 OF 2005)
Decided On : 07-04-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
When recruitment and regularisation is made as pr Rules, service rendered as ad hoc appointee has to be taken into account for seniority.

Headnote:Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 – Rules 4 and 7 – Policy of direct recruitment after due selection and subsequent regularisation as per 1979 Rules – Validity of such scheme of recruitment not under challenge – Initial appointment not stopgap or

       fortuitous – Rules providing regularisation of such ad hoc appointments and counting of seniority from the date of appointment – Writ petitioner could not be deprived of benefit of past service rendered by him. (Para 18)

       (1990) 2 SCC 715; (2000) 8 SCC 25 – Relied upon

       (1993) 3 SCC 371; 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 272 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       The writ petitioner was first appointed as Work Engineer (Work Charge) on a fixed pay of Rs.650/-on 18th January, 1983. Later he was appointed on temporary post of Assistant Engineer in regular scale on ad hoc basis. The letter of appointment, inter alia, provided that the appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and his services could be terminated by notice or on availability of candidates duly selected through Public Service Commission and the appointee had no claim for regular appointment. The said appointment, however, continued and was followed by “Notification/Regularization” dated 14th December, 1989 as per the 1979 Rules as amended by 1989 Rules.

       The writ petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.9940 of 2001 with the grievance that in the seniority list published on 4th January, 1995 his name was placed at Serial No.274 showing his service w.e.f. 14th December, 1989. In doing so, he was not given benefit of past service, while such benefit was given to other similarly placed persons.

       The High Court finally held that the writ petitioner was not entitled to benefit of past service.

       Finding of the Court:

       Writ petitioners are entitled to benefit of their past services.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been preferred against judgment and order dated 13th February, 2003 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.9940 of 2001 and dated 10th December, 2004 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.11542 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18683 of 2004 has been filed by the Minor Irrigation Department of State of Uttar Pradesh (“the Department”) and SLP (Civil) No.8330 of 2005 has been filed by Narendra Kumar Tripathi (“the writ petitioner”) employed as engineer with the Department of Minor Irrigation, Rural Engineering in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In both the matters, the question involved is whether the writ petitioner is entitled to count his service as Assistant Engineer from 12th June, 1985, the date of his initial appointment on an ‘ad hoc’ basis, for purposes of seniority or his service will be counted only from 14th December, 1989, the date on which approval to his appointment was given by the State Government under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (“1979 Rules”) as amended on 7th August, 1989 by the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1989 (“1989” Rules).

3. The writ petitioner was first appointed as Work Engineer (Work Charge) on a fixed pay of Rs.650/-on 18th January, 1983. Later, vide Office Memo dated 12th June, 1985 issued by the Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Rural Development Section on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee, he was appointed on temporary post of Assistant Engineer in regular scale on ad hoc basis. The letter of appointment, inter alia, provided that the appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and his services could be terminated by notice or on availability of candidates duly selected through Public Service Commission and the appointee had no claim for regular appointment. The said appointment, however, continued and was followed by “Notification/Regularization” dated 14th December, 1989 as per the 1979 Rules as amended by 1989 Rules.

4. The 1979 Rules provided for regularization of ad hoc appointment of persons possessing requisite qualifications for regular appointment on completion of three years continuous service. Rule 7 provides for seniority from the date of order of appointment after selection. The said Rules though initially applicable to appointments made prior to January 01, 1977 were extended from time to time and on 7th August, 1989, the said rules were extended to persons directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before 1st October, 1986 and who continued in service.

5. Rules 4 and 7 are as under :

“4. Regularisation of adhoc appointments : (1) any person who –

(i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before January 1, 1977 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules;

(ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment; and

(iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years continuous service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or order.

(2) In making regular appointments under these rules, reservations for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward classes and other categories shall be made in accordance with the order of the Government in force at the time of recruitment.

(3) For the purpose of sub-rule (1) the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee and consultation with the Commission shall not be necessary.

(4) The appointing auth


































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