Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
Vanshraj Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Forest Govt.Of Up Lko. And Ors. – Respondent
WRIT - A No. -18864 of 2016
Decided on : 20-09-2022
Seniority - Forest Department - Rules of 1991 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, initially engaged on a daily wage basis, sought regularization and seniority from February 1994. After interim orders and subsequent representations, the petitioner's seniority was fixed at serial No.19 in the seniority list of Southern Zone, U.P., Allahabad. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his representation for seniority from February 1994.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's substantive appointment was on 25.01.1995 and that the dismissal of the writ petition in 2013 meant that the petitioner's entitlement to regularization prior to 25.01.1995 was not adjudicated. The court also cited relevant case law and held that the petitioner is entitled to seniority only from the date of substantive appointment on 25.01.1995.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to seniority from February 1994 or from the date of his substantive appointment on 25.01.1995.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that seniority can only be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment, and ad hoc service cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. The court also emphasized that the interim order passed by the court merged into the final order, and the petitioner was entitled to seniority only from the date of his substantive appointment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pratyush Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Southern Region, U.P., Allahabad, by which the representation of the petitioner dated 23.04.2016 has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the opposite party nos. 1 to 5 to provide seniority to the petitioner from February 1994.
3. It would be apt to refer the brief facts of the case for adjudication of the case in hand. Initially, the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis on the post of Driver in the Forest Department. He approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No.307(S/S) of 1994 claiming his regularization. The interim order was passed in the writ petition on 21.01.1994, by means of which it was provided that the opposite parties shall consider the matter of regularization of the petitioner and the petitioner shall be paid salary in the regular scale of pay as admissible to the driver until further orders. In pursuance thereof, a Selection Committee was constituted and in pursuance of the report of the Selection Committee, the petitioner was appointed on the post of driver by means of the order dated 25.01.1995 in the pay scale of 950-1500 and he was paid the regular salary by the Divisional Director, Social Forestry Division Pratapgarh. The said order was passed subject to final outcome of the pending writ petition. The services of the petitioner were confirmed vide order dated 06.02.2009. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 18.01.2013.
4. The petitioner again approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No.7632(S/S) of 2009 for payment of regular salary w.e.f February 1994 to 25.01.1995 in compliance of the interim order dated 29.01.1994 passed in Writ Petition No.307(S/S) of 1994. In the said writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at some length restricted his prayer for a direction to the extent that for redressal of his grievance, the petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh representation to the opposite party no.5 therein and he may be directed to consider and decide the same within some stipulated period. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by means of the order dated 19.11.2019, without entering into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the opposite party no.5 and the opposite party no.5 was directed to consider and decide the representation, in case the petitioner moves representation within 10 days, by a reasoned and speaking order as per law. In pursuance thereof, representation was decided and the petitioner was paid remaining salary w.e.f. 01.02.1994 to 25.01.1995.
5. The petitioner preferred a representation on 10.01.2014 for correction of his seniority and claiming seniority from 01.02.1994 on the ground that the petitioner has been given regular pay scale since February 1994 in compliance of order passed by this Court on 29.01.1994 in Writ Petition No.307(S/S) of 1994 and the regular appointment has been given to the petitioner on 25.01.1995, therefore he is entitled for seniority w.e.f. 01.02.1994. The petitioner again preferred a representation on 17.11.2015. However, though some recommendations were made but the petitioner was not given the seniority and the tentative seniority list was issued on 22.03.2016, in which the petitioner was placed at serial No.19 on the basis of the date of appointment i.e. 25.01.1995. The objections were called from the employees. The petitioner also filed objection. Thereafter he again approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No.7976(S/S) of 2016, which was disposed of by means of order dated 13.04.2016. The order dated 13.04.2016 is extracted here-in-below:
Let the petitioner implead the C
The main legal point established in the judgment is that seniority can only be counted from the date of substantive appointment, and ad hoc service cannot be considered for the purpose of seniority.
Petitioners (including the present petitioner) would not be entitled to the benefit of the ad hoc period of service while reckoning of his seniority.
Seniority is to be counted from date of substantive appointment and substantive appointment means, an appointment, not being an ad hoc appointment, on a post in cadre of service, made after selection....
Service matter - Seniority - The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service....
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
