1. Dispute regarding inter se seniority between direct recruits and incumbents whose lower-grade posts were subsequently upgraded to the same cadre. (Para 2 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 714
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Mhabemo Ovung & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M. Moanungba & Ors. – Respondents
Civil appeal nos. 9927 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.17102 of 2021) (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.1136 OF 2022)
With
The State Of Nagaland & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M. Moanungba & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 9928 of 2024
Decided on : 28-08-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Inter se seniority of Junior Engineers – Direct recruits versus upgraded – All what is required to be considered is date on which they became members of cadre of Junior Engineers coming from two different sources.
Inter se seniority of Junior Engineers – Direct recruits versus upgraded – All what is required to be considered is date on which they became members of cadre of Junior Engineers coming from two different sources.
Subject
Service Law - Seniority and Promotion
Act Referred
NAGALAND ENGINEERING SERVICES RULES: .
Headnote
Service Law – Seniority – Inter se seniority of Junior Engineers – Direct recruits versus upgraded – All what was required to be considered was date on which they became members of cadre of Junior Engineers coming from two different sources – As to whether upgradation of post was right or wrong is not an issue – Even if Sectional Officer, Grade-I, are treated to be working from date they were officiating as such, nothing hinges on that as far as seniority in cadre of Junior Engineers is concerned – Blatant error committed by Division Bench of High Court is that upgraded Sectional Officer, Grade-I, are directed to be given seniority in cadre of Junior Engineers from a date on which they were not even born in cadre – Impugned order passed by Division Bench of High Court set aside – Seniority list of Junior Engineers upheld. (Paras 13, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Issue under consideration in present appeals is regarding inter se seniority of incumbents appointed to post of Junior Engineer on direct recruitment basis and those whose posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were upgraded to Junior Engineer.
Findings of Court:
Even if Sectional Officer, Grade-I, are treated to be working from the date they were officiating as such, nothing hinges on that as far as the seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers is concerned. It is for the reason that the post of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, on which they were working was upgraded to that of Junior Engineer (Class-II Gazetted) vide letter dated 11.10.2007.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the parties : Mr. K N Balgopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudarsh Menon, AOR Mr. Avijit Roy, AOR
For the parties : Mr. K N Balgopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudarsh Menon, AOR Mr. Avijit Roy, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether seniority should be determined by the date of entry into the cadre or the date of appointment to a lower post subsequently upgraded. (Para 6 )
3. Seniority is determined by the date of entry into the specific cadre; prior service in a lower, non-gazetted post is irrelevant to seniority in the upgraded cadre. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. Seniority in a cadre is determined by the date of entry into that cadre, regardless of prior service in a lower post that was later upgraded. (Para 13 , 15 )
5. Appeals allowed, Division Bench order set aside, and the seniority list upholding direct recruits' seniority over upgraded incumbents restored. (Para 16 )
6. How is inter se seniority determined between direct recruits and employees whose posts were upgraded to the same cadre?
Seniority is determined by the date the employees became members of the specific cadre. Prior service in a lower post, even if that post was later upgraded, does not grant seniority from the date of the lower post's appointment. (Para 13 , 15 )
7. Does regularization of officiating promotion in a lower post affect seniority in a subsequently upgraded higher cadre?
No. Regularization or officiating service in a lower post has no bearing on seniority in a higher cadre if the entry into the higher cadre occurred only upon the upgradation of the post. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The issue under consideration in the present appeals is regarding inter se seniority of the incumbents appointed to the post of Junior Engineer on direct recruitment basis and those whose posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were upgraded to Junior Engineer.
3. Final seniority list of Junior Engineers was circulated on 26.03.2018 showing the seniority position of the incumbents manning the posts from two different sources. Aggrieved against the seniority list, Sectional Officers, Grade-I, who were redesignated/upgraded as Junior Engineers challenged the same by filing W.P.(C)No.264(K) of 2018 and W.P.(C) No.74(K) of 2019 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 16 herein. The Learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.02.2020 dismissed both the writ petitions. Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.74(K) of 2019, an intra-court appeal, W.A. No.4 of 2020 was filed. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. As a consequence, the impugned seniority list circulated on 26.03.2018 was set aside and the department concerned was directed to refix the seniority of the Junior Engineers in terms of the directions given in the judgment.
3.1 Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the directly recruited Junior Engineers in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.17102 of 2021 and the State in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.1136 of 2022 are before this Court.
4. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the directly recruited Junior Engineers/appellants in C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.17102 of 2021 submitted that they were selected as such after qualifying the exam conducted by the Nagaland Public Service Commission and appointed in the pay-scale of Rs.6000-9750, vide Notification dated 01.05.2003. Their selection and appointment were strictly in terms of the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 19971[The 1997 Rules]. Ever since their appointment they have been performing their duty diligently.
4.1 The contesting private respondents are incumbents who were earlier working in the cadre of Sectional Officers, Grade-I in the pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000. Their posts were upgraded to that of Junior Engineers by the Government of Nagaland vide Communication dated 11.10.2007. It was only thereafter that they entered in the cadre of Junior Engineer. Prior to that they were working in a lower grade as compared to the direct recruits/Junior Engineers.
4.2 After the selection of the direct recruits, a number of tentative seniority lists were circulated starting from 31.05.2004. However, none of them were finalized. It was only on 26.03.2018 that the seniority list was finalized. The appellants herein were shown above the incumbents/respondents who entered in the grade of Junior Engineers after their post of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, was upgraded to Junior Engineer. It was for the reason that the appellants have been working as Junior Engineer ever since their appointment vide Notification dated 01.05.2003 whereas the post of the Sectional Officer, Grade-I, was upgraded to that of Junior Engineers only vide Communication dated 11.10.2007. Prior to that they were working on non-gazetted lower post of Sectional Officer, Grade-I.
4.3 Even otherwise if considered in terms of the 1997 Rules, the manner in which post of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, has been upgraded to Junior Engineer, is not the manner provided in which the post of Junior Engineer can be filled up. Be that as it may, the appellants are not aggrieved with that action of the State, in case they are granted proper position in the seniority list. The result of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is that the private respondents have been assigned seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers from the date on which they were not even born in the cadre, which is legally impermissible. In support of the arguments reliance was placed upon the judgments of this Co
