- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
U.P Jal Nigam v. S.C Atri And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, an Executive Engineer in the U.P. Jal Nigam, was considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on 6-8-1977 along with other Executive Engineers. His promotion was withheld because an adverse entry for the year 1974-75 stood in his service record, although a representation for expunction of that entry was then pending. The representation succeeded on 10-8-1978, and he was ultimately promoted on 10-4-1979.
Believing that his seniority should date back to the promotions of his juniors, the respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. On 9-10-1991 the Allahabad High Court directed the appellant-corporation to restore his seniority with effect from 6-8-1977 in accordance with Regulation 23(6) read with Regulation 21(3) of the U.P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1978, and to grant all consequential benefits. The U.P. Jal Nigam appealed from that order, leading to the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, after expunction of the adverse entry, the respondent was entitled under Regulation 23(6) to have his seniority in the cadre of Superintending Engineer reckoned from the date on which his juniors were promoted.
- Whether the proviso to Regulation 23(6)—which places later-promoted officers below earlier promotees when the earlier denial was for “unsuitability”—applied to the respondent’s case.
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 focused on the text of Regulation 23(6) and its proviso. The main provision preserves inter-se seniority across promotions; the proviso displaces that order only when an officer was “not promoted on account of unsuitability.”
Key analytical steps were:
- The adverse entry that initially blocked promotion was subsequently expunged. Once expunged, its legal effect is as if it never existed on the date of consideration.
- Because the respondent’s non-promotion was tied solely to the now-void adverse entry, it could not be characterised as “unsuitability” within the meaning of the proviso.
- Consequently, the proviso did not apply, and the general rule in Regulation 23(6) governed—requiring seniority parity based on the substantive post previously held.
- The High Court’s order aligning the respondent’s seniority with that of his juniors therefore correctly applied the regulation.
Given these findings, the appellate court saw “no reason to interfere” with the High Court’s directive.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed.
The High Court’s order stands: the respondent’s seniority as Superintending Engineer dates from 6-8-1977, entitling him to all consequential benefits. As the respondent has since retired, the ruling mainly affects his retiral benefits; the judgment sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming the plain application of Regulation 23(6) where an adverse entry is subsequently expunged.
1. The respondent was an Executive Engineer in the U.P Jal Nigam. He was considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer along with certain other Executive Engineers but he was not promoted because on the date on which he was considered for promotion there existed an adverse entry for the year 1974-75 in his character roll, against which a representation, admittedly, was pending with the appellant. The representation was subsequently allowed on 10-8-1978 and by order dated 10-4-1979 he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. The respondent approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by means of a writ petition for a direction that his seniority may be restored in terms of Regulation 23(6) of the U.P Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1978. By order dated 9-10-1991, the writ petition was allowed and the direction was issued to the appellant to reckon the respondent's seniority in accordance with Regulation 21(3) and treat him to be promoted on the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted vide order dated 6-8-1977. The appellant was also directed to give all consequential benefits to the respondent.
2. Regulation 23(6) is quoted below:
“23. (6) The inter se seniority of persons promoted to the post of Executing Engineer, Superintending Engineer or Additional Chief Engineer shall be the same as it was in the substantive post held by them at the time of promotion:
Provided that persons who were not promoted on account of unsuitability shall not, on promotion in any subsequent selection, reckon the seniority and their seniority in the post to which they are subsequently promoted shall be fixed below those who are promoted earlier.”
3. This regulation provides that the inter se seniority of persons promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer shall be the same as in the substantive post held by them at the time of promotion. The only exception is contained in the proviso to this regulation which says that if any person senior to others was not promoted on account of unsuitability and is promoted subsequently, he would be treated as junior to persons already promoted.
4. On the date on which the respondent was considered along with other Executive Engineers for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, there was an adverse entry for the year 1974-75 in his character roll on account of which he was not promoted although a representation against the adverse entry was pending. This adverse entry was subsequently expunged as his representation was allowed. The effect of the order allowing the expunction of the adverse entry would be that on the date on which he was considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, there existed no adverse entry in his character roll. Subsequently, it cannot be said that the respondent was not promoted on account of his unsuitability. That being so, the High Court was justified in ordering that the respondent on being promoted, though subsequently, shall be entitled to reckon his seniority with effect from the date on which a person junior to him was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. We are also informed that the respondent has since retired from service. We do not, therefore, see any reason to interfere in the matter. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Alert