Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
Suren Patowary and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam and Ors. - Respondent
Civil Rule Nos. 1547 and 1575 of 1999
Decided On: 30.08.2004
Seniority Dispute - Administrative Tribunal Judgment - Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973 - Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service (Amendment) Rules, 1987 - The court set aside the judgment of the Assam Administrative Tribunal and all consequential orders, restoring the seniority positions of the Petitioners as LDA and UDA, and declaring that the Respondent No. 4 would be entitled to count his seniority from the date of his regular absorption in the cadre of LDA as per order dated 13.04.95.
Fact of the Case:
The writ Petitioners challenged the judgment of the Assam Administrative Tribunal, which directed the determination of seniority of the Respondent No. 4 from a particular date, affecting the seniority of the Petitioners in the cadre of LDA. The Petitioners were not party to the proceeding before the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's decision to grant seniority to the Respondent No. 4 from the date of his initial appointment as Steno-Typist was unjustified and affected the settled seniority positions of the Petitioners. The court also noted the violation of principles of natural justice in not affording any opportunity to the Petitioners to present their case.
Issues: The issues involved included the propriety of the jurisdiction assumed by the Tribunal, the disturbance of settled seniority positions, and the violation of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the fortuitous service rendered by the Respondent No. 4 prior to his regular absorption in the cadre of LDA could not count towards seniority. It also emphasized the importance of non-joinder of necessary parties and the need to avoid disturbing settled affairs in service matters.
Final Decision: The court allowed both the writ petitions, setting aside the judgment of the Assam Administrative Tribunal and all consequential orders, and restoring the seniority positions of the Petitioners as LDA and UDA.
B.K. Sharma, J.
1. The issues involved in both the writ petitions are same and based on same set of facts. Thus, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and Order.
2. The writ Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.07.88 passed by the Assam Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati in case No. (19 ATA (Misc.)/97)/(35ATA/96) directing determination of seniority of the Respondent No. 4 from a particular date which has affected the seniority of the Petitioners in the cadre of LDA. The Petitioners were not party to the proceeding before the Tribunal.
3. Out of the four writ Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 1575/99, the first three writ Petitioners were appointed as Lower Division Assistant (hereinafter referred as LDA) in the office of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam on 17.06.82. The 4th writ Petitioner was appointed as Typist on 09.07.92. The lone Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1547/99 was appointed as LDA on 09.10.82. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 4 was first appointed as Steno-Typist by an order dated 07.06.82 for a limited period of three months which was further extended for three months each by orders dated 15.09.82 and 20.12.82.
4. The first three Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 1575/99 were appointed as LDA in the office of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam in the pay scale of Rs. 300-575/-, whereas the 4th Petitioner was appointed as Typist in the scale of pay of Rs. 275-475/- in the same office. The lone Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1547/99 was appointed as LDA in the pay scale of Rs. 300-575/-. The temporary appointment of the Respondent No. 4 as steno-Typist was made in the pay scale of Rs. 275-475/- and he was so appointed in the M.E. Cell of the Directorate.
5. By an order dated 04.12.87, a gradation list of LDAs of the Directorate prepared on the basis of Service records was published placing the Petitioners at serial Nos. 15, 16, 17, 19 and 21 showing their aforesaid respective dates of appointment as LDA. It will be pertinent to mention here that the 4th Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1575/99 although was appointed as Typist, but he was treated to be in the cadre of LDA as indicted in the said gradation list. The Respondent No. 4 was not included in the gradation list, which according to the Petitioners was rightly so, he having not born in the cadre of LDA in the Directorate.
6. The four Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 1575/99 were promoted as Upper Division Assistant (hereinafter referred as UDA) w.e.f. 01.09.93, 25.08.94 and 31.10.94 (Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4) respectively. The lone Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1547/99 was also allowed to officiate as UDA by an order dated 08.01.99. By an order dated 13.04.95, the Respondent No. 4 was absorbed as LDA specifying that his seniority in the cadre of LDA would be from the date of joining as LDA as per the said order, meaning thereby that he was to count his seniority w.e.f. 13.04.95 in the cadre of LDA.
7. By Annexure-10 order dated 22.07.96 the provisional gradation list of the Ministerial Staff of the Directorate prepared on the basis of the available records including the service books, etc. was published showing the names of the Petitioners at serial Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 respectively as against the name of the Respondent No. 4 appearing at serial No. 59 indicating his date of appointment as LDA w.e.f. 04.05.95.
8. In the meantime, the Respondent No. 4 instituted proceedings before the Assam Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati, registered and numbered as Case No. 19 ATA (Misc,)/97/35 ATA/96 making a prayer for counting of his past service from 07.06.82 as Steno-Typist up to the date when he was absorbed in the cadre of LDA by order dated 13.04.95. However, the Petitioners were not made party Respondents in the said proceedings. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.98 allowed the appeal directing the official Respondents to count the past services of the Respondent No. 4 as Steno-Typist in the cadr
AI
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
