Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
W.A.Shishak, J.
PV Verghese -Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur and Ors. -Respondent
Civil Rule Nos. 635 and 636 of 1993
Decided On : 12-04-1994
SERVICE REGULARISATION - IN-CHARGE ARRANGEMENT - REGULAR APPOINTMENT - ELIGIBILITY - SERVICE RULES - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S DISCRETION - PUBLIC INTEREST - EQUITY - Petitioners, diploma holders, served as Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works on in-charge basis since 1986, without regular appointment, despite meeting eligibility criteria. Court held that in-charge arrangement, initially intended as a stop-gap measure, became a prolonged service due to administrative exigency. Considering their long service, experience, and impending retirement, regular appointment was granted, subject to seniority determination and exclusion of back pay.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, diploma holders, served as Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works on an in-charge basis since 1986, holding the charge continuously till the date of the judgment. Despite meeting the eligibility criteria, they were not given regular appointments. The Government contended that the in-charge arrangement was a stop-gap measure, and the petitioners were not entitled to regular appointments while serving in such a capacity.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the in-charge arrangement, initially intended as a stop-gap measure, became a prolonged service due to administrative exigency. The petitioners had served for 4 years before their cases were considered for promotion, and by the time of the judgment, they had served for 8 years. The Court also noted that the petitioners had gained significant experience in the posts they held.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners, who served as Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works on an in-charge basis for a prolonged period, were entitled to regular appointments. 2. Whether the in-charge arrangement, initially intended as a stop-gap measure, could be considered a prolonged service due to administrative exigency.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to regular appointments, considering the following factors: - The in-charge arrangement, initially intended as a stop-gap measure, became a prolonged service due to administrative exigency. - The petitioners had served for 4 years before their cases were considered for promotion, and by the time of the judgment, they had served for 8 years. - The petitioners had gained significant experience in the posts they held. - The petitioners were nearing retirement, and regular appointments would allow them to retire as Executive Engineers, their last hope in their service career as diploma holders.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions and directed the Government to grant regular appointments to the petitioners as Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works. However, seniority was to be determined in accordance with relevant rules, and the petitioners were not entitled to claim pay and allowances for the period they served in the in-charge capacity.
2. Both the petitioners are Diploma holders. In terms of recruitment rules, they are eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works after putting in regular service as Assistant Engineer for nine (9) years. By Government order dated 4th July 1983, the service of the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 635 of 1993 Shri PV Verghese was regularised in the post of Assistant Engineer wef 24.11 1969. Hence when order was issued on 23rd September, 1986 to hold the charge of Executive Engineer Shri Verghese had already put in service as Assistant Engineer for about 17 years. By order dated 11th September, 1981, the service of Shri L. Manihar Singh, petitioner in Civil Rule No. 636 of 1993 in the post of Assistant Engineer was regularised wef 6.12.1971. Hence when he was ordered to hold the charge of Surveyor of Works/Executive Engineer by order dated 10th October, 1986, Shri Mauhar Singh had put in service as Assistant Engineer for about fifteen years. Therefore, both the petitioners claim that since they were eligible for regular promotion to the post of Executive Engineer/ Surveyor of Works in 1986, they ought to have been given regular appointment instead of allowing them to hold the charge of the aforesaid posts inasmuch as they had requisite qualifications to hold the posts in question. At this stage, it may be stated that in terms of recruitment rules, Diploma holders cannot go beyond the post of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works. At this stage, it may be also stated that Shri Verghese, petitioner in Civil Rule No. 635 of 1993 will retire in about two (2) years or so, whereas Shri L. Manihar Singh will retire in another four (4) years or so.
3. It appears the contention of the petitioners that they have been holding the charge of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works since 1986 till date is correct inasmuch as the Court had passed order on 28.6.90 in CR No 282 of 1990 in respect of Shri Verghese to maintain status quo as Executive Engineer until further orders and also another order dated 12.10.87 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Application No. 1140/87/403/87 in connection with Civil Rule No. 1060 of 1987, status quo of Shri L. Manihar Singh as Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works was ordered to be maintained. It may also be stated that on 21.9.89, on the basis of submission made by the Govt. Advocate, that the promotion of the petitioner was being considered, this Court had made it clear that order of status quo should not prevent the respondent Government from appointing the petitioner as Executive Engineer during the pendency of the petition. It was stated in the said order that the respondent Government shall inform the Court after appointment is made in the backdrop of this case it appears even as early as in 1987, the eligibility of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works was not in doubt in the mind of the Government inasmuch as it was also made clear at the Bar that the Government was considering the case of the petitioners for promotion to the aforesaid posts.
4. Mr. KNK Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners could have been considered within the purview of Office Memorandum dated 9th October, 1992 for the purpose of regulari
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
