Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 4962

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Union of India & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Kiran Pal Singh – Respondent
W.P.(C) 565 of 2003
Decided On : 06-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Ms. Vanya Bajaj, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
None, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the equivalence of two posts for the purpose of seniority should be determined based on various factors, including the nature of duties, responsibilities, qualifications, and salary, and not solely on equal pay.

Headnote:
Seniority - Government Employee - S.I. Roop Lal & Anr. vs. L.G. Delhi & Ors., 2000(1) SCC 644 - The judgment of the Full Bench and Division Bench was based on the interpretation of the Supreme Court's judgment in S.I. Roop Lal's case. The court held that a deputationist cannot be denied the benefits of the service rendered by him on an equivalent post in his parent department, even if he had been informed at the time of his permanent absorption that he would not be granted that benefit and he accepted that position. The court also emphasized that the equivalence of two posts should be determined based on the nature of duties, responsibilities, qualifications, and salary, and not solely on equal pay.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a government employee, was absorbed in the borrowing department and sought the counting of service of his parent office for the purpose of seniority. The petitioner argued that the respondent's seniority should be reckoned only from the date of his absorption, as the pay scale of his previous post was lower than that of the current post.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent was entitled to count his services from his previous post towards seniority in the borrowing department, based on the interpretation of the Supreme Court's judgment in S.I. Roop Lal's case. The court emphasized that the equivalence of two posts should be determined based on various factors, not solely on equal pay.
Issues: The main issue was whether a government employee, on deputation and absorbed in the borrowing department, is entitled to the counting of service of his parent office for the purpose of seniority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Supreme Court's judgment in S.I. Roop Lal's case, which emphasized that the equivalence of two posts should be determined based on the nature of duties, responsibilities, qualifications, and salary, and not solely on equal pay.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, and held that the respondent was entitled to seniority based on the service rendered by him in his parent department, as per the judgment in S.I. Roop Lal's case.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao (Oral)

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to orders dated August 09, 2003 and April 16, 2002. The order dated April 16, 2002 is an order of the Full Bench passed on a reference made because of the difference of opinion between Two Benches with regard to the issue. The order dated August 09, 2003 is an order of the Division Bench passed pursuant to the judgment of the Full Bench answering the reference whereby the Division Bench has decided the O.A. in favour of the respondent herein.

2. The short issue which arises for consideration is whether a government employee, who has come on deputation and absorbed in the borrowing department shall be entitled to the counting of service of his parent office for the purpose of seniority.

3. The Full Bench of the Tribunal has decided the issue based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.I. Roop Lal & Anr. vs. L.G. Delhi & Ors., 2000(1) SCC 644, in the following manner:

"14. On behalf of respondents a plea of acquiescence on applicant's part has been raised. It has been contended that once applicant in his option exercised on 14.12.1992 had given his acceptance for absorption as SA(G) in IB in accordance with DoPT's OM dated 22.12.59 read with DoPT's OM dated 29.05.86, he was bound by the same. Secondly respondents have raised the plea of limitation stated that while he was absorbed as SA(G) in IP on 27.03.93, the OA seeking counting of his past service in CRPF for the purpose of determination of his seniority in IB has been filed in the year 2000. Thirdly, respondents contend that as the pay scale of SA(G) is higher than that of a Constable in CRPF, applicant is not entitled to count the service rendered by him in his parent department i.e. CRPF for determination of his seniority as the two posts are not equivalent. Fourthly it has been contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in SI Roop Lal's case (supra) would have only prospective effect as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu Ram vs. C.C. Jacob & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 1845.

15. We have considered rival contentions carefully.

16. The short question which this Full Bench is required to answer is to whether in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in SI Roop Lal's case (Supra), notwithstanding the fact that equivalence of two posts is established in terms of the criteria laid down therein, a deputationist could be denied the benefit of service rendered by him on an equivalent post in the previous department if he was informed at the time of his permanent absorption that he would not be granted that benefit and he had accepted this position.

17. In our considered opinion, for the reasons already given by the Division Bench in its order dated 16.10.2001 in cases where the equivalence of two posts is established in terms of the criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SI Roop Lal's case (Supra) a deputationist cannot be denied the benefits of the service rendered by him on an equivalent post in his parent department even if he had been informed at the time of his permanent absorption that he would be not granted that benefit and he accepted that position. The reference is answered accordingly.

18. We make it clear that while answering the aforesaid reference as above we are not recording any finding as to whether the post of Constable in CRPF is equivalent to that of SA (G) in IB or not.

19. Let this OAs be placed before the appropriate bench for disposal on merits and in accordance with law."

4. Based on the judgment of the Full Bench, the Division Bench has allowed the OA filed by the respondent herein. The respondent was appointed as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on June 06, 1983 where he worked till June 01, 1986. On June 02, 1986 he came on deputation with the petitioner organization/IB and ultimately was absorbed in IB as Security Assistant (G), on March 26, 1993. The Tribunal has in paragraph 5 of the order dated April 16, 2003 quoted the case of t