Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
The Employees State Insurance Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Anil Katyal & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) 12135 of 2023 & CM APPL. 47696-97 of 2023 & CM APPL.57874 of 2023
Decided On : 18-03-2024
Employees State Insurance Corporation - Seniority Dispute - Employee State Insurance Act 1948 - Section 3, K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. V. Ningam Siro & Ors., (2020) 5 SCC 689 - N.R. Parmar vs. Union of India & Others, (2012) 13 SCC 340 - Recruitment Regulations 1999 and 2007
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved the seniority lists for the post of Social Security Officer/Branch Managers Grade - II/Superintendents in the Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) between direct recruits and departmental promotees. The lists were challenged and set aside by the Tribunal, directing ESIC to re-draw the lists in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the instructions & guidelines issued by the Department Of Personnel & Training (DOP&T).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned seniority lists were not final and were immediately challenged, therefore not protected under the law. The court dismissed the petitions and directed ESIC to comply with the Tribunal's directions and re-draw the seniority list within eight weeks.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the seniority lists and whether they were drawn up in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned seniority lists were not protected as they were not final and under a cloud, and therefore directed ESIC to re-draw the seniority list in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the instructions & guidelines issued by the DOP&T.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and ESIC was directed to re-draw the seniority list for the post of Social Security Officer/Branch Managers Grade - II/Superintendents in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the instructions & guidelines issued by the DOP&T within eight weeks.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
1. Employees State Insurance Corporation - the petitioner in W.P. (C) 12135/2023, W.P.(C) 14351/2023 and W.P.(C) 14434/2023 is a Statutory Corporation under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India established under Section 3 of Employee State Insurance Act 1948 and is under the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India.
2. The dispute in these petitions pertain to the seniority lists issued on 15.03.2016, 24.06.2016 and 08.11.2016 for the post of Social Security Officer/Branch Managers Grade - II/Superintendents in the Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESIC for short).
3. Private Respondents, the original Petitioners in O.A. 141 of 2017 and O.A. 1234 of 2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) were the departmental employees who had been promoted through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination impugned the seniority lists whereby the Direct Recruits were placed above them in the seniority lists. Petitioners in O.A. 235 of 2017 were direct recruits appointed under the Sportsperson category and claimed seniority to the other direct recruits.
4. In W.P.(C) 12135/2023, ESIC seeks quashing of judgment dated 30.08.2022, of the Tribunal in O.A. 141 of 2017, whereby the seniority lists were quashed being contrary to the law laid down in K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. V. Ningam Siro & Ors., (2020) 5 SCC 689.
5. In W.P.(C) 14351/2023 ESIC seeks quashing of judgment dated 20.04.2023, of the Tribunal in O.A. 235 of 2017 whereby following the judgment dated 30.08.2022 in O.A. 141 of 2017 (impugned in W.P. (C). 12135/2023), directions were issued to redraw the seniority list.
6. In W.P.(C) 14434/2023 ESIC seeks quashing of judgment dated 22.03.2023, of the Tribunal in O.A. 1234 of 2022., wherein once again following the judgment dated 30.08.2022 in O.A. 141 of 2017 (impugned in W.P.(C). 12135/2023), directions were issued to redraw the seniority list.
7. In W.P.(C) 16798/2023 the Direct Recruits appointed to the subject posts seek quashing of judgment dated 30.08.2022, of the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench in O.A. 141 of 2017.
8. By a Judgment dated 30.08.2022, rendered in O.A. No. 141 of 2017 [impugned in W.P.(C) 12135/2023,W.P.(C) 16798/2023],the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), allowed the challenge of the petitioner therein and the impugned seniority lists were set aside, and ESIC was directed to re-draw the seniority list in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) and the instructions & guidelines issued by the Department Of Personnel & Training (DOP&T) on the subject.
9. By the Judgment dated 20.04.2023 rendered in O.A. No.235 of 2017 (impugned in W.P.(C) 14351/2023), the Tribunal disposed of the petition with an observation that while redrawing the seniority list in accordance with the detailed observations and directions contained in the order passed in O.A. No. 1545/2015 and O.A. No 141/2017, as also the instructions and guidelines of the DOP&T on the subject, it further directed that ESIC shall also be guided by the instructions and provisions governing assignment of seniority to persons who have been recruited against the quota reserved for sportspersons.
10. By a Judgment dated 22.03.2023 rendered in O.A. No. 1234 of 2022 (impugned in W.P.(C) 14434/2023), the Tribunal disposed of the Petition in view of the order in O.A. No. 141/2017 whereby the impugned orders/seniority lists dated 04.03.2022, 15.03.2016 and 24.06.2016 were quashed and set aside. The Competent Authority was directed to re-draw the seniority list strictly in accordance with the observations made therein and the instructions & guidelines issued by the DOP&T on the subject.
11. The genesis of the dispute pertains to the seniority between direct recruits and departmental promotees who were promoted
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that seniority lists must be drawn up in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the relevant regulations, and if the lists are ....
Seniority must be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment, as an employee cannot claim seniority for any period prior to their actual entry into the service or their induction into the cadr....
Inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees determined by rotation of quotas based on recruitment year (initiation of process), not vacancy year; non-compliant lists set aside for redete....
Service Laws – Seniority List – OMs made it clear that seniority of direct recruits had to be fixed from the date of appointment and not from date of initiation of recruitment process.
Seniority in government service is determined by the date of appointment, not just the year joined in the cadre, protecting prior established seniority rights.
Finalized inter-regional transferee seniority based on overruled precedent protected prospectively; cannot be reopened per Supreme Court direction and DoP&T circular.
Seniority cannot be granted to employees not borne in the cadre; it must reflect the actual date of joining. A fresh seniority list should be prepared following Supreme Court rulings.
Seniority for government employees must be determined from the date of appointment, not the initiation of recruitment, as upheld in relevant Supreme Court decisions.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
