- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajbir Singh And Others v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants were appointed in 1971 to Class IV posts in the Railways. In 1975 they were promoted—after a selection test—to posts carrying the pay scale of Rs 192-232 and thereafter continued to work in Class III positions on an ad hoc basis. On 26 September 1986 their services were formally regularised in Class III; however, in the resulting seniority list the Railways ignored the period of ad hoc service (1975-1986). Alleging that several juniors had been given the benefit of their ad hoc service and consequently promoted to Senior Clerk and Head Clerk positions, the appellants challenged the seniority list before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. Relying on Ashok Gulati v. B.S. Jain, the CAT rejected their claim on 1 January 1989. The appellants sought special leave to appeal; the Supreme Court granted leave and heard the matter, culminating in the present order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an employee who was promoted to a substantive vacancy but continued to serve in that post on an ad hoc basis for several years is entitled to have that period counted for the purpose of determining seniority upon subsequent regularisation.
- Whether relief could be denied because other employees whose seniority might be affected were not impleaded as parties.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Their continuous ad hoc service from 1975 to 1986 was rendered against substantive vacancies after due selection and therefore must be counted for seniority.
- Juniors in identical circumstances had already been accorded seniority benefits, resulting in their promotion to higher clerical grades.
Respondent's Arguments
- Relying on Ashok Gulati v. B.S. Jain, ad hoc service could not be considered in fixing seniority.
- Relief should be withheld until all employees likely to be affected were impleaded in the proceedings.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ashok Gulati v. B.S. Jain, 1986 Supp SCC 597; AIR 1987 SC 424; (1987) 1 SCR 603 | Ad hoc service does not count towards seniority when the appointment is purely temporary or fortuitous. | The CAT applied this case to deny the appellants seniority benefits. The Supreme Court held the precedent inapplicable because the appellants had been appointed to substantive vacancies and had worked continuously for 11 years. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated that while ad hoc or fortuitous appointments ordinarily confer no seniority rights, the principle changes when an employee is appointed against a substantive vacancy and continues to officiate for a long duration. The Court noted:
- The appellants became members of the Railway service upon their initial Class IV appointments in 1971 and were duly found qualified for promotion in 1975.
- Their continuous officiation for approximately 11 years in Class III posts could not be categorised as purely fortuitous; rather, it filled substantive vacancies.
- The Railways did not dispute the allegation that similarly situated juniors had received the benefit of ad hoc service for seniority.
- The earlier decision in Ashok Gulati dealt with materially different facts and thus had “no semblance of application.”
- The objection concerning non-impleadment of potentially affected employees lacked merit because the appeal centred on a pure question of law regarding computation of seniority.
Consequently, the Court concluded that excluding the appellants’ 11-year ad hoc service from seniority calculations was legally unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE.
The Court directed the Railway authorities to re-determine the appellants’ seniority by counting their ad hoc service from 1975 until regularisation in 1986 and to consider consequential promotions. No costs were awarded. The ruling clarifies that prolonged officiation against substantive vacancies must be credited for seniority, but it establishes no new broader precedent beyond reaffirming existing principles.
Order
1. Special leave granted.
2. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the findings arrived at by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, are not in accordance with law. We are unable to uphold the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi for the reasons given hereinunder:
(a) The appellants were appointed in 1971 in class IV posts and they were promoted in the grade of Rs 192-232 in 1975 and were further promoted to class III posts after holding selection test and finding them suitable for the promoted posts. They have been working all along since their promotion as members of the class III service since 1975. On September 26, 1986 the services of the appellants were regularised and in determining their seniority the entire period of ad hoc service since 1975 was not taken into consideration. It has been alleged that a number of juniors to the appellants were given seniority taking into consideration their ad hoc period of service and as a result they became Senior Clerks and Head Clerks. The order of seniority has been challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal relying upon the decision in Ashok Gulati v. B.S Jain 1986 Supp SCC 597, AIR 1987 SC 424, (1987) 1 SCR 603 held that the ad hoc service in the promoted posts of class III cannot be taken into account in determining the seniority of these appellants. It has been further held that the fact that the applicants who were officiating on local ad hoc basis were selected and regularised cannot give them any benefit of seniority from the date of their ad hoc promotions. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants and upheld the order of seniority as made by the Railway Authorities. It is pertinent to note in this connection that there has been a specific allegation made by the appellants that juniors to them, similarly appointed and similarly circumstanced have been given their seniority taking into consideration the ad hoc period of service rendered by them and as such, they became Senior Clerks and Head Clerks.
3. It is well settled by several decisions of this Court that an appointment against a purely temporary ad hoc or fortuitous post does not entitle the holder of the post to be a member of the service and as such, such fortuitous or ad hoc appointment does not entitle the holder of the post to get the benefit of the period of such ad hoc or fortuitous service. Nevertheless, if a person is appointed against a substantive vacancy and is subsequently promoted to continue on ad hoc basis to hold such posts for a number of years, then, in that case the appointment though made on ad hoc basis has to be taken into consideration in reckoning the seniority of the holder on that basis. In the instant case, there is no whisper on the part of the Railway authorities that the appellants who are already members of the service by being appointed in class IV posts since 1971 and subsequently promoted in 1975 on ad hoc basis after holding regular tests and finding them qualified to be promoted and have actually been regularised and promoted in class III service and their services were subsequently regularised in the said posts in 1986. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that such ad hoc service for a period of about 11 years will not be taken into account in determining the seniority of the holders of the class III post, i.e the appellants. It has also been clearly averred that in similar circumstances some of the juniors of the appellants who had been given seniority from the date of regularisation and were allowed the benefit for the period of ad hoc promotion. Similar application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi by Shri Chander Mohan Sharma and others being Regn. No. O.A 989 of 1986. It came up before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and the Tribunal by their order directed that the seniority of the appellants as Clerks should be reckoned on the basis of their continuous officiation from 1983. It was also directed that on the basis of their revised seniority they should be considered for promotion to the next higher grade of Senior Clerks from the date when their next juniors were considered. These averments have not at all been denied or controverted in any manner whatsoever by the affidavit in counter filed on behalf of the Railways by one V.M Kutty, Divisional Personnel Officer (Special) in the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi.
4. Considering all these facts and circumstances and also considering the well settled decisions of this Court we are constrained to hold that the period of 11 years of ad hoc service has to be taken into consideration in determining the seniority of these appellants. The decisions in Ashok Gulati case 1986 Supp SCC 597, AIR 1987 SC 424, (1987) 1 SCR 603 referred to hereinbefore has no semblance of application to this case as the facts of that case are totally different from the facts of this case. It has been tried to be contended before us by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that since the employees who are likely to be affected by this judgment have not been impleaded, the relief should not be granted until and unless they are impleaded in this case. We are unable to find any merit of this submission for the simple reason that the question of law involved in this case is whether a person appointed on an officiating basis to a substantive vacancy and working there for a considerable period of years is entitled to have his period of ad hoc service to be reckoned while being regularised in the promoted posts.
5. Considering all aspects of the matter, we cannot but hold that the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated January 1, 1989 is without any merit and as such we set aside the order and direct the authorities concerned to consider the case of the appellants and to determine their seniority after taking into account the period of ad hoc service since the initial date of their promotions to class III service till the date of regularisation in 1986. The appeal is, thus, allowed. In the background of the facts and circumstances it is not deemed fit and proper to award any costs.
Alert