Union Of India v. B. Jayaraman, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Appeal Nos. 4604 to 4609 of 1992, decided on May 13, 1993

Disposition

dismissed

Advocates

A.S Nambiar, Senior Advocate (P.K Manohar and Ms Shanta Vasudevan, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant;
R. Venkataramani, V.G Pragasam and S.M Garg, Advocates, for the Respondents.

Judges

Justice Kuldip Singh
Justice Yogeshwar Dayal

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Six Original Applications (Nos. 145 to 150 of 1987) were filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, by B. Jayaraman and five other Superintendents Grade II working in the Secretariat of the Government of Pondicherry. They challenged the promotions of twelve erstwhile Secretarial Assistants (respondents 2-13) who had been promoted first to Superintendent Grade II and thereafter to Superintendent Grade I ahead of the applicants. Their core grievance was that, although the applicants had already been functioning as Superintendents Grade II since 1 August 1981, the respondents—drawn from a lower pay scale—were promoted over them on the basis of a tentative seniority list that credited the respondents with their earlier service as Assistants (1 January 1973 – 31 July 1981).

The Tribunal held that counting Assistant-grade service for seniority in Superintendent Grade II was unsupported by the 1981 Recruitment Rules, quashed the impugned promotion orders (dated 7 August 1986, 20 August 1986, 1 September 1986 and 17 November 1986) and directed preparation of a fresh seniority list confined to length of service in Superintendent Grade II. The Union of India appealed against that decision; the present judgment disposes of those six appeals.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the service rendered by Assistants between 1 January 1973 and 31 July 1981 could be taken into account for determining seniority in the cadre of Superintendent Grade II under the Government of Pondicherry (Group “C” — Non-Gazetted Ministerial Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1981.
What is the correct interpretation of the “Note” and “Proviso” appended to column 11, Schedule VII of the 1981 Rules governing promotion to Superintendent Grade I.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court closely examined the “Note” and “Proviso” in column 11 of Schedule VII to the 1981 Rules:

The “Note” allows service rendered as Assistant between 1 January 1973 and 31 July 1981 to be counted only for the limited purpose of establishing five years’ eligibility for promotion from Superintendent Grade II to Grade I.
The “Proviso” expressly safeguards the seniority of (i) Superintendents (Non-Secretariat) in service as on 31 December 1972, placing them en bloc senior to Assistants in service on that date; and (ii) officers appointed between 1 January 1973 and 31 July 1981, who are to rank inter se by their respective dates of appointment in their own posts.
Accordingly, the note cannot be construed to permit inclusion of Assistant-grade service for fixing inter se seniority in Superintendent Grade II. After 1 August 1981, seniority in Grade II must be governed by the ordinary principle of length of service in that very grade.
Because the Government’s tentative seniority list violated this principle, the promotions that flowed from it were unsustainable.
The Tribunal’s directions to redraw the seniority list solely on the basis of service actually rendered in Superintendent Grade II, and thereafter to consider promotion to Grade I, were thus correct in law.

Holding and Implications

The appeals are dismissed. The Supreme Court affirms the Tribunal’s decision, upholding the setting aside of the impugned promotion orders and directing preparation of a fresh seniority list in Superintendent Grade II based solely on length of service in that grade. The decision clarifies that the 1981 Recruitment Rules permit prior Assistant service to be considered only for eligibility—not for seniority—thereby preserving the standard service-jurisprudence rule that seniority follows actual service in the higher post. No broader precedent was set beyond authoritative interpretation of the specific Pondicherry Rules involved.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Union Of India v. B. Jayaraman

Yogeshwar Dayal, J.— These six appeals have been filed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated August 22, 1989 while disposing of Original Application Nos. 145 to 150 of 1987. Those were filed seriatim by B. Jayaraman; A. Kanakasena Rao; M. Venkatachalam; A. Sherfudeen; K. Viswanathan and P. Madhavan Adiyodi. The respondents in all these six matters before the Tribunal were the same — namely, respondent 1 was Union of India whereas respondents 2 to 13 were the erstwhile Secretarial Assistants promoted as Superintendents Grade II and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I in the Secretariat of the Government of Pondicherry and governed by the Government of Pondicherry (Group ‘C’ — Non-Gazetted Ministerial Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’).

2. The petitioners before the Tribunal had challenged the promotion of respondents 2 to 13 therein who were promoted from Secretarial Assistants to Superintendents Grade II and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I before them in spite of the fact that the petitioners had already been working as Superintendents Grade II prior to the promotion of erstwhile Assistants as Superintendents Grade II. The promotion of respondents before the Tribunal was alleged to be based on tentative seniority list wherein respondent 1 had included the feeder service rendered by the Assistants between January 1, 1973 and July 31, 1981 for computing the seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade II. The plea of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that from August 1, 1981 respondents 2 to 13 who were Assistants and were in a distinctly lower scale of pay as compared to the applicants, they could not be promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade I before the petitioners. The Tribunal allowed the applications, O.A Nos. 145 to 150 of 1987 and held:

“It appears to us that there has been some confusion between a liberal provision which has been deliberately made for conferring eligibility for consideration for promotion to the next higher post with reckoning of the period of service rendered in the post of Assistant for the purpose of counting seniority in the post of Superintendent, Grade II. The tentative seniority lists based on which promotions of respondents 2 to 13 have been made as Superintendents Grade I are based on the application of an erroneous principle of determining seniority which is not backed by any statutory provision. That has led to a situation where persons promoted to a higher grade of Superintendent Grade II before the Assistants and in which posts they were also confirmed, are being placed below respondent 2 onwards.”

3. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the promotions of respondents 2 to 13 before it contained in various orders of the Government of Pondicherry dated August 7, 1986; August 20, 1986; September 1, 1986 and November 17, 1986. Respondent 1 was further directed to prepare the seniority list in the grade of Superintendent Grade II on the basis of the length of service rendered in that grade and thereafter, all the eligible persons may be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade I and that should include persons like respondents 2 to 13 before it who would get the benefit of service rendered by them as Assistant between January 1, 1973 to November 30, 1981 for determining the period of eligibility and not for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Superintendent Grade II.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the Union of India had preferred the present appeals.

5. It appears the petitioners before the Tribunal were aggrieved by the grant of benefit of service rendered during the period January 1, 1973 to July 31, 1981 by those who were working in the grade of Assistants towards their seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade II.

6. For appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties we may give a statement showing the dates of appointments in various grades and ranking assigned in respect of the petitioners and respondents 2 to 13 in O.A Nos. 145 to 150 of 1987 before the Tribunal:

Name of the Official Date of Appointment Seniority in Asstt. Supdt. (NS) Supdt. Gr. II Supdt. Gr. II Supdt. Gr. I Supdt. Gr. II Supdt. Gr. I Petitioners B. Jayaraman (Applicant in O.A 145/87) —— 2.8.73 1.8.81 13.10.86 104 189 A. Kanakasena Rao (Applicant in O.A 146/87) —— 10.12.73 1.8.81 17.11.86 113 197 M. Venkatachalam (Applicant in O.A 147/87) —— 2.8.73 1.8.81 13.10.86 103 188 A. Sherfudeen (Appli-cant in O.A 148/87) —— 30.8.78 1.8.81 7.9.87 140 Not Assign-ed K. Vishwanathan (Applicant in O.A 149/87) —— 7.4.77 1.8.81 20.3.87 126 207 P. Madhavan Adiyodi (Applicant in O.A 150/87) —— 10.2.76 1.8.81 17.12.86 119 201 Respondents V. Dhandapani (R-2) 6.11.64 not appointed 26.5.82 7.8.86 182 174 K.C Kumaran (R-3) 8.12.64 —do— 14.5.82 7.8.86 184 176 G. Ranganathan (R-4) 11.3.65 —do— 13.1.82 7.8.86 186 177 S. Pushparaj (R-5) 25.5.65 —do— 13.1.82 7.8.86 187 178 K. Meenakshi (R-6) 9.5.67 —do— 9.7.83 7.8.86 208 179 G. Radha-Krishnan (R-7) 19.5.67 —do— 12.1.82 7.8.86 188 180 S. Sethuraman (R-8) 23.11.68 —do— 12.1.82 20.8.86 190 183 S. Felixraj (R-9) 7.4.69 —do— 12.1.82 22.8.86 191 184 S. Kuppusamy (R-10) 14.4.69 —do— 12.1.82 1.9.86 193 185 R. Chandrasekaran (R-11) 29.1.70 —do— 22.8.83 1.9.86 212 186 J. Pandurangan (R-12) 9.3.74 —do— 21.6.82 17.11.86 195 198 S. Sundarasan (R-13) Nov. 1964 —do— 30.9.86 17.11.86 183 175

7. The scales of pay for various periods for the posts of Assistant, Superintendent Grade II and Superintendent Grade I may also be noticed:

NAME OF THE POST SCALE OF PAY Pre-revised (prior to 1973) Revised (w.e.f 1.1.73) On and from 1.8.1981 Assistant 210-425 425-700 425-700 Supdt. Grade II Supdt. (N.S) 325-475 (who have passed Hr. Accounts Test) 550-750 550-750 270-435 (for others) 425-700 (for others) Supdt. Grade I 350-550 550-900 550-900

8. It may be noticed that most of the respondents before the Tribunal were working in the grade of Rs 425-700 when they were promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade II in the pay scale of Rs 550-750. It is thus clear that on general principles of service jurisprudence the Assistants having been promoted to the grade of Superintendent Grade II after those already working Superintendent Grade II would naturally rank junior to them. The confusion in the Government appears to have been created in view of the note and the proviso occurring in Schedule VII of the Rules relating to the recruitment to the post of Superintendent Grade I. In column 11 thereof the recruitment is provided by ‘Promotion’ from among the Superintendent Grade II who have completed five years of service in the said post. There is a note and the proviso to the following effect in column 11:

“Note.— For computing the five years service, the service rendered in the post of Superintendent (Non-Secretariat) and the service rendered after 1st January 1973 and up to 31st July 1981 in the post of Assistant shall be taken into account:

Provided that the Superintendents (Non-Secretariat) in service as on 31st December 1972 shall en bloc be seniors to Assistants in service on that date and the Superintendents (Non-Secretariat) and Assistants appointed on or after 1st January 1973 and up to 31st July 1981 shall rank inter se with reference to their dates of appointment in the respective posts.”

9. It is clear that the note merely allows the erstwhile Assistants, who were promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade II, for purposes of counting the period of five years' service as Superintendent Grade II, to include their service rendered as Assistants after January 1, 1973 to July 31, 1981. This note is for no purpose other than for giving them eligibility for consideration for promotion from the cadre of Superintendent Grade II to the cadre of Superintendent Grade I. The proviso again is very clear when it says that Superintendents (Non-Secretariat) in service as on December 31, 1972 shall en bloc be seniors to Assistants in service on that date and the Superintendents (Non-Secretariat) and Assistants appointed on or after January 1, 1973 and up to July 31, 1981 shall rank inter se with reference to the dates of appointment in their respective posts. All the Superintendents in Grade II who were appointed after July 31, 1981 would naturally rank in the seniority on the basis of respective dates of appointment as Superintendent Grade II.

10. We are thus in complete agreement with the reasonings and conclusion of the Tribunal and it is declared that the note in column 11 is only for purposes of giving eligibility to the erstwhile Assistants working as Superintendents Grade II for purposes of being considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade I and not for the purpose of seniority at all. There is no rule of seniority vis-a-vis for (sic) promotees to Superintendent Grade II with effect from August 1, 1981 for calculating seniority and normal rule of service jurisprudence of length of service will apply.

11. With these observations the appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.

Union Of India v. B. Jayaraman

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Union Of India v. B. Jayaraman

Comments