Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(UK) 254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT, JJ.
Rajendra Pal - Appellant
Versus
Kailash Chandra Peinuly and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 253 of 2020 With Writ Petition (S/B) No. 254 of 2020
Decided on : 15-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate, Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjay Raturi, Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Ms. Niti Rana, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the catch-up rule for seniority determination in the absence of specific provisions for consequential seniority in the service rules.

Headnote:
Seniority Dispute - U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 - Rule 26, Rule 46 of Uttar Pradesh Palika and Jal Sansthan Water Works Engineering (Centralized) Service Rules, 1996 - The court discussed the application of catch-up rule and consequential seniority in the absence of specific provisions in the service rules. The judgment upheld the application of the catch-up rule for seniority determination and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners and the first respondent were employees of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, a statutory corporation established under the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. A seniority dispute arose when the first respondent claimed seniority over the petitioners on the promoted post of Assistant Engineer. The dispute was initially decided in favor of the first respondent by the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, which was later challenged in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions, including Rule 26 and Rule 46 of the Uttar Pradesh Palika and Jal Sansthan Water Works Engineering (Centralized) Service Rules, 1996. It upheld the application of the catch-up rule for seniority determination in the absence of specific provisions for consequential seniority in the service rules. The court dismissed the writ petition and directed the re-drawing of the seniority list in favor of the first respondent.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of seniority in a seniority dispute between the petitioners and the first respondent, based on the relevant statutory provisions and the application of the catch-up rule in the absence of specific provisions for consequential seniority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 26 and Rule 46 of the Uttar Pradesh Palika and Jal Sansthan Water Works Engineering (Centralized) Service Rules, 1996, and the application of the catch-up rule for seniority determination in the absence of specific provisions for consequential seniority.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and directed the re-drawing of the seniority list in favor of the first respondent, upholding the application of the catch-up rule for seniority determination.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 253 of 2020 alone are being considered.

2. Petitioners are employees of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, which is a statutory corporation established under provisions of U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. A seniority dispute was raised by first respondent(Kailash Chandra Peinuly) before Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 42/DB/2018, with the contention that he was substantively appointed as Junior Engineer in the year 1987 while respondent nos. 4 to 7 in the claim petition were appointed as Junior Engineer only in the year 2005, therefore, he should be treated as senior on the promoted post of Assistant Engineer, even though, his promotion was delayed by two years. Learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, allowed the claim of first respondent by setting aside the seniority list dated 06.07.2017, with a direction to the Competent Authority to revise the seniority list by placing his name, above the name of private respondents in the claim petition.

3. Feeling aggrieved by judgment dated 28.07.2020 rendered by learned Tribunal, private respondents in the claim petition have approached this Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is not in dispute that petitioners as well as first respondent were appointed as Junior Engineer. First Respondent was initially appointed as ad-hoc Junior Engineer on 16.10.1982, and thereafter, he was regularised on the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 16.12.1987.

6. Petitioners who belong to Scheduled Caste category, were regularly appointed as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 06.08.2005, and they were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer against reserved vacancies, vide order dated 11.03.2011; while, first respondent was promoted as Assistant Engineer only on 09.04.2013.

7. In the year 2015, a seniority list of Assistant Engineers, serving in Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan was issued, however, it was later cancelled and a fresh seniority list was published on 06.07.2017, in which first respondent was placed below the petitioners. This seniority list was challenged before learned Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 42/DB/2018, which earlier also was allowed by learned Tribunal, vide judgment dated 25.03.2019. Operative portion of the said judgment dated 25.03.2019 is extracted below:-

“ORDER

“The seniority list dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure: A-1) is hereby quashed. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to redraw the seniority of the parties (petitioner and private respondents) in accordance with Rule-6 and it’s ‘Explanation’ of the Uttarakhand Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 read with Rule 24 of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Engineering Service Rules, 2011, within a period of four months from today. The petitioner shall also be entitled to consequential benefits, if any, accrued to him, in law. It is made clear that in the absence of any relief thus sought in this behalf, this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the legality or otherwise, of the promotions of the private respondents to the post of Assistant Engineers. No order as to costs.”

8. Petitioners challenged said judgment rendered by learned Tribunal by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 264 of 2019 & Writ Petition (S/B) No. 344 of 2019. Those writ petitions were allowed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 12.06.2020; judgment of learned Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded to learned Tribunal. Coordinate Bench held that since petitioners were promoted as Assistant Engineer much before enforcement of 2011 Rules, therefore, their seniority would be governed by 1996 Rules, which were in vogue on the date of their promotion.

9. Upon remand, learned Tribunal again decided the claim petition in favour of