The court reaffirmed that seniority cannot be granted retrospectively from an earlier appointment date when it adversely affects validly appointed recruits.

ORDER :

Ananda Sen, J.

Heard, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(A) The Respondent be directed to determine his seniority on the basis of the date of his initial appointment at par with the same and similarly situated persons and to pass the final order within a stipulated period.

(B) The Respondents be directed to correct the seniority position of this petitioner mentioned in the seniority list dated 21.12 2016 on the basis of his initial date of appointment i.e. on and from 17.11.1981 and to give all consequential benefits there on.

(C) The Respondents be directed not to discriminate the petitioner and to extend the same benefits to the petitioner at par with the same and similarly situated persons.

(D) The Respondents be directed to give the promotional benefits including the benefits of pay Commissions Report on the basis of his seniority on and from the date of his initial appointment.

3. Undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed on 17.11.1981 on the post of Assistant in the office of District Panchayat on daily wages. The Deputy Director Panchayati Raj, vide order dated 05.01.1990 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) regularized the services of the petitioner and one other person named Sri Sachidanand Sahay from the date of the order which was subsequently cancelled by the Director Panchayati Raj. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in C.W.J.C. No.1663 of 1990(R) for setting aside the cancellation order in which the direction was given to dispose of the matter. The respondents issued seniority list on 21.06.2016 in which the name of the petitioner is at serial No.7. Admittedly, the petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2017.

4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on the behalf of petitioner submitted that on 21.06.2016, the Jharkhand Government issued a final seniority list where the petitioner’s name figured at Sl. No.7, with his appointment date showing as 05.01.1990, instead of his actual initial appointment date of 17.11.1981. He submitted that this action of respondents placing the petitioner below to his juniors, who were appointed later is bad. She further submitted that despite several correspondences asking for his seniority date to be corrected, no final order has been issued, and he has been denied consequential benefits. She further argued that the petitioner’s case is similar to the case of one Ashok Kumar Mishra in C.W.J.C. No.8402 of 2005.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents summitted that Memo No.06 issued on 05.01.1990 by the Deputy Director of Panchayat Raj, which regularized the services of the petitioner from 17.11.1981 (his initial appointment date) to 05.01.1990, was beyond his jurisdiction and therefore the Director of Panchayat Raj, Bihar, cancelled the said order. He further submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 05.01.1990 pursuant to the order passed in C.W.J.C. No.1663 of 1990 R and was given ACP and other benefits. He further submitted that the case of this petitioner is different from the case of Ashok Kumar Mishra in C.W.J.C. No.8402 of 2005 as the petitioner in this case has already been given the benefit of A.C.P. which was not in Ashok Kumar Mishra’s case. He lastly submitted that since the service book shows no regular salary was being paid to the petitioner before 05.01.1990, so his representation was not considered.

6. Admittedly,