HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Nirendra Krishna Mitra, J.
Kumar Kamalesh Narayan Banerjee
Versus
State of West Bengal.
C.O. No. 10645(W) of 1982
Decided On : August 10, 1990
SENIORITY - COMPUTATION - RULE 4 OF THE GUJARAT SUBORDINATE SECRETARIAT SERVICE (SENIORITY OF ASSISTANTS) RULES (1977) - The date of absorption in a new office after joining the same on deputation should not be treated as the starting point for determining the seniority of the employees in the new office. Deputation should be treated as a sort of transfer from one government department to another and in computing the seniority of a government employee on transfer to one department to another even by way of deputation, the length of his service in the post from which he had been so transferred, cannot be wiped out.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, initially appointed as Lower Division Clerks in the N.C.C. Offices under Education Department, joined as Lower Division Clerks on deputation in the Calcutta Pay and Accounts Office and were later absorbed in the regular posts. A gradation list was published showing the private respondents, who had joined the Calcutta Pay and Accounts Office on deputation and were absorbed therein prior to the petitioners, as seniors to the petitioners. The petitioners challenged this gradation list and the subsequent promotion of the private respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the State Government had acted illegally in fixing the seniority of the petitioners and the private respondents depending upon the mere incident of absorption in the new department without considering the total length of service in their original department before their absorptions to the new department. The court also held that the impugned gradation list and promotions were made without considering the total length of service of the petitioners and were thus quashed.
Issues: Whether the date of absorption in a new office after joining the same on deputation should be treated as the starting point for determining the seniority of the employees in the new office.
Ratio Decidendi: Deputation should be treated as a sort of transfer from one government department to another and in computing the seniority of a government employee on transfer to one department to another even by way of deputation, the length of his service in the post from which he had been so transferred, cannot be wiped out.
Final Decision: The impugned gradation list and promotions were quashed and the respondents were directed to re-arrange the gradation list by giving the petitioners their due seniority taking into account their respective total length of service from their initial appointments.
Heard Mr. Mondal for the petitioners and Mr. Dutta for the State of West Bengal. None appears for the private resp0ndents in spite of service of notice upon them as would appear from the order of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suhas Chandra Sen on 16th May, 1984.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were originally appointed as Lower Division Clerks in the scale of 230-425/- in different N.C.C. Offices under Education Department, Government of West Bengal during the years 1963-1965 Subsequently the petitioners joined as Lower Division Clerks on deputation in the Calcutta Pay and Accounts. Office during September and October, 1978 Thereafter, the petitioners were absorbed in the regular posts of Lower Division Clerks in the said Calcutta Pay and Accounts Office in the revised scale of Rs. 300-685/- with effect from 1st of April, 1981., The private respondent Nos. 6 to 67 also joined the Calcutta Pay and Accounts Office on deputation from other offices and they were also absorbed therein on the same terms and conditions as the petitioners. On or about 31st December, 1981 a gradation list of the State Government Employees Group 'C' in the Calcutta Pay and Accounts Office under the Finance Department (Audit) Branch was published by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and in the said list the petitioners were shown against SI. Nos. 77, 78, 79 and 80 respectively, while the respondent Nos. 6 to 67 had been shown against SI. Nos. 14 to 75 although according to the petitioners the said respondents were all juniors to the petitioners No. 1 and respondent Nos. 13 to 67 were juniors to the petitioner No.2, the respondent Nos. 22 to 67 were juniors to the petitioner No. 3 and the respondent Nos. 35 to 67 were juniors to the petitioner No.4 so far as the length of their respective services from the date of their initial appointments prior to such absorption, were concerned.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that in the seniority list the respondent Nos. 6 to 67 were wrongly shown as seniors to the petitioners on the erroneous computation of their length of services from the day when they joined the 'Calcutta Pay and Accounts Office without however taking into account their respective total length of services starting from their initial appointments. The petitioners made several representations to the respondent no. 3 for restoration of their positions in the gradation list according to their length of services under the Government from their initial appointments. Subsequently, the respondent nos. 6 to 38. though juniors in service to the petitioner no. 1, were given Intermediate Selection Grade Rs. 330-535/- and later on they were promoted to the post of Junior Accountants in the revised grade of Rs. 380-915/- ignoring the legitimate claims of the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged such illegal acts on the part of the respondents in this present Civil Order on various grounds.
4. The main contention of the petitioners' learned Advocate, Dr. Mondal inter alia is that since the petitioners were initially appointed prior to the initial appointments of the private respondent nos. 6 to 67 in most case, the disparity made in the gradation list of the State Government Employees Grade 'C' of the Calcutta Pay and Accounts Office published on 3ht December, 1981 and the subsequent promotion of the respondent nos. 6 to 38 to the Intermediate Selection Grade and allowing them the benefits of the revised pay scale because those respondents had joined the Calcutta Pay and Accounts Office on deputation and were absorbed therein prior to the petitioners, ignoring the legitimate claims of the petitioners, cannot be sustained in law and should be quashed, as according to Dr. Mondal, deputation may he regarded as a transfer from one government department to another as there is not much difference between deputation and transfer and it will be against all rules of service jurisprudence, if a government servant holding a particular post is transferre
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.