( 34 ) INSOFAR as the contentions of the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 10339, 10334, 10342, 10320, 10340, 10238, 10153, 10187 and 10668 of 2003 are concerned, to count their earlier seniority as NMRs and casual which was not counted and admittedly their seniority has been taken into account from the date of regularization of their services. They have been regularized into their services in 1999, and their seniority has been rightly reckoned taking into account the date of regularization of their services. The Apex court in the case of Chief Naval Staff and another v. G. Gopala Krishna Pillai, (l996) 1 SCC 521, held that ad hoc appointment without selection by a regularly constituted selection body and even though the said ad hoc appointment was followed by regularization in the same post, the seniority has to be counted from the date of regularization alone. The same principle was also followed in the case of M. K. Shanmugam and another v. Union of India, (2000) 4 SCC 476.

( 35 ) IT is contended in W. P. No. 10237/ 2003 that he is senior in the feeder post but his junior selected for promotion earlier to him and he was later promoted and, therefore, his seniority has to be protected in the feeder post cannot be accepted as per the Rules framed by the Board with regard to the fixation of the seniority as the seniority has to be fixed from the date of joining in the promoted post. The Apex court in the case of State of U. P. v. Onkarnath, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 202, held that senior who is promoted subsequent to the junior is not entitled to claim seniority on the basis of his subsequent promotion on the ground that he was senior in the feeder post.

( 36 ) A contention was also advanced that the employees are entitled to claim seniority from the date of the temporary appointment. Seniority cannot be claimed from the date of temporary appointment as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of K. L. N. S. Murthy v. Government of A. P. , 2003 (4) ALD 375 (DB ).

( 37 ) THE petitioners in W. P. Nos. 11553, 11555, 11852, 11858 and 11196 of 2003 are concerned, they are working on deputation in different organizations. All of them are the employees of Federation only. After determination of the seniority on par with the other employees, the surplus and non-surplus list was prepared and the Federation informed the respective organizations and sought repatriation of the petitioners to the parent department i. e. , Federation. All these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as the contentions of these writ petitions are squarely covered by a judgment of the Apex court in State of Punjab and others v. Indersingh, 1997 (8) SCC 372. Following earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court held in the said case that the deputationists could be reverted to their parent cadre at any time and they would not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation basis. The concept of deputation is well understood in the service law and has a recognized meaning. "deputation" has a different connotation in service law and dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of no help. In simple words, deputation is a service outside the cadre or 'outside the parent department deputation is deputing or transferring the employee to a post outside his cadre and that is to say to another department on temporary basis. After expiry of period of deputation, the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the recruitment rules. Whether transfer is outside the normal field of the department or not is to be decided by the authorities who have control over the service or post from which the employee is transferred. Therefore, all these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

( 38 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the Federation that the promotions given by the Unions cannot be disturbed and they cannot be treated on par with the Federati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document