- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India v. Kuldip Singh Permer And Others
Case Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent 1 began his career as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Science Master) in the Himachal Pradesh Education Department and, with effect from 1 January 1978, drew the revised pay-scale of Rs 620–1200. On 8 February 1977 he went on deputation to the Special Services Bureau (SSB) under the Directorate General of Security as a Circle Organiser and was absorbed in that post on 8 August 1984.
The SSB’s tentative seniority list dated 24 October 1986, and subsequent lists of 6 December 1987 and 30 June 1988, ranked him only from the date of absorption. After his representations were rejected, he moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench, in 1989. By judgment dated 15 March 1996 the CAT allowed his application and ordered re-fixation of seniority.
The Union of India filed Civil Appeal No. 2702 of 1997 challenging the CAT’s decision. A connected matter, SLP (C) No. 5674 of 1997, became Civil Appeal No. 6428 of 2003 and was disposed of alongside the main appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an employee absorbed in the SSB is entitled to seniority from the date of deputation or only from the subsequent date of absorption.
- Whether clause 7(iv) of the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 22-12-1959 (as amended 29-5-1986) requires crediting earlier service in an “equivalent grade” in the parent department while determining seniority after absorption.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- Seniority commences only from 8 August 1984—the date of absorption—not from the earlier deputation period.
- The word “equivalent” in clause 7(iv) should be read as “equivalent post” in terms of duties; because Respondent 1 had been a school teacher, his earlier post was not equivalent to Circle Organiser.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Clause 7(iv) explicitly allows counting earlier regular service in the same or equivalent grade in the parent department.
- He had held a higher pay-scale (Rs 620–1200) from 1-1-1978 in the parent department, making that service eligible for seniority credit.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule/Principle | Court’s Application |
|---|---|---|
| Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, (2000) 1 SCC 644 | Ignoring service in an equivalent cadre during deputation for seniority violates Arts. 14 & 16. | Reinforced that earlier regular service in an equivalent or higher grade must be counted while fixing seniority post-absorption. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Rule 6 of the Special Services Bureau (Junior Executive) Service Rules, 1976 recognises deputation as a legitimate mode of entry. Rule 10, which earlier dealt with seniority, had been deleted in 1982; hence the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 22-12-1959 governed the issue.
Clause 7(iv) of the OM—inserted on 29-5-1986—permits counting prior regular service where, on the date of absorption, the employee already holds the same or an “equivalent grade” in the parent department. The Court held that “grade” refers to pay-scale, not identity of duties.
Respondent 1 had, from 1-1-1978, been on a higher pay-scale than the Circle Organiser’s grade. Therefore, under clause 7(iv), his seniority must be reckoned from the later of (i) the date of deputation and (ii) the date he entered that higher grade—namely 1-1-1978. The appellant’s restrictive reading of “equivalent” was rejected as contrary to both the text of the OM and the constitutional principles affirmed in Rooplal.
Holding and Implications
Civil Appeal No. 2702 of 1997: DISMISSED. Respondent 1’s seniority as Circle Organiser shall be re-fixed by crediting his regular service from 1 January 1978.
Civil Appeal No. 6428 of 2003: DISMISSED WITH MODIFICATION. The CAT’s award of seniority from 28 September 1973 is set aside; seniority will instead be counted from 1 January 1978.
Implications: The judgment reaffirms that, for absorbed employees, prior regular service in an equivalent or higher pay-grade in the parent department must be counted for seniority. While the ruling directly benefits the respondents, it primarily reiterates an existing principle rather than establishing a new precedent.
Arun Kumar, J.—
CA No. 2702 of 1997
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15-3-1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. The original application was filed by Respondent 1 before the Tribunal challenging the seniority list issued by the Department wherein his seniority had been fixed from the date of absorption in the Department. Respondent 1 was claiming seniority from the date he initially joined the Department on deputation. To appreciate the issue involved in the appeal, it is necessary to give some facts. Respondent 1 had joined the service in the Himachal Education Department, a department of the State Government, as a Trained Graduate Teacher. He was appointed as a Science master with effect from 26-9-1970 in the pay scale of Rs 220-500. This scale was subsequently revised to Rs 620-1200 with effect from 1-1-1978.
2. After the Chinese aggression, the Government of India had started a department called the Special Services Bureau under the Directorate General of Security (DGS). To govern the service conditions in the Special Services Bureau, rules called the Special Services Bureau (Junior Executive) Service Rules, 1976 were promulgated with effect from 30-6-1976. Respondent 1 joined the said Bureau on deputation with effect from 8-2-1977 as Circle Organizer. On his exercising option in this behalf, he was absorbed in the said post of Circle Organizer with effect from 8-8-1984.
3. The Department issued a tentative seniority list of Circle Organizers on 24-10-1986. The respondent was aggrieved of the said list as his seniority was determined from the date of his absorption in the Department as Circle Organizer. The respondent was claiming seniority with effect from the date he joined the Department on deputation. He made representation against the tentative seniority list. However, on 6-12-1987 and thereafter on 30-6-1988 seniority lists were issued in which Respondent 1 was assigned seniority on the basis of the date of his absorption in the Department. The respondent made some representations against the same which were, however, rejected. Ultimately, he filed the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in the year 1989. This was allowed by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 15-3-1996, which is under challenge in this appeal.
4. The stand of the appellant is that Respondent 1 is entitled to seniority only from the date of his absorption in the Department and not prior thereto. To examine this stand of the appellant, reference has to be made to the Service Rules, that is, the Special Services Bureau (Junior Executive) Service Rules, 1976 and the relevant Government of India instructions.
5. Rule 6 refers to initial constitution. Sub-rule (1) only is relevant for the present purpose which runs as under:
“6. (1) All persons holding, as on the appointed day, any one of the categories of posts specified in Rule 4, whether in a permanent or temporary or officiating capacity or on deputation basis, shall be eligible for appointment to the service at the initial constitution thereof.”
6. It is seen from the said rule that deputation is envisaged as one of the modes of appointment to the service. Respondent 1, it will be recalled had come on deputation and therefore, he was eligible to join the service. Rule 7 refers to seniority of those appointed at the time of initial constitution:
“7. Seniority of those appointed at the time of initial constitution.— Seniority of persons appointed on a permanent basis in each grade at the initial constitution of the service shall be in the order in which they are shown in the relevant lists prepared in accordance with provisions of Rule 6.”
7. The respondent in the present appeal had joined subsequently, therefore, Rule 7 is not relevant.
8. Rule 10 refers to fixation of seniority at the maintenance stage. We need not refer to the said rule because it stood deleted vide notification dated 10-6-1982 and therefore at the time when the exercise for fixation of seniority took place in the present case, that is, which was much after 1982, the said rule was not in existence. It is not disputed that in the absence of specific rules, the general principles and guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time are applicable. The Government of India vide OM No. 9-11/55, RPS, dated 22-12-1959 issued certain instructions regarding fixation of seniority of government employees. Respondent 1 was an absorbee in the Department and therefore clause 7 of the said instructions got attracted. The same is reproduced as under:
“7. Absorbees.—(i) The relative seniority of persons appointed by absorption to a Central service from the subordinate offices of the Central Governments or other Departments of the Central or State Governments shall be determined in accordance with the order of their selection for such absorption.
(ii) Where such absorptions are effected against specific quotas prescribed in the Recruitment Rules therefor, the relative seniority of such absorbees, vis-à-vis direct recruits and promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies which shall be based on the quotas reserved for absorption, direct recruitment and promotion respectively in the Recruitment Rules.
(iii) Where a person is appointed by absorption in accordance with a provision in the Recruitment Rules providing for such an absorption in the event of non-availability of a suitable candidate by direct recruitment or promotion, such absorbee shall be grouped with direct recruits or promotees, as the case may be, for the purpose of para 6 above. He shall be ranked below all direct recruits or promotees, as the case may be, selected on the same occasion.
(iv) In the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later (i.e where the relevant Recruitment Rules provide for deputation/absorption), his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption. If he has, however, been holding already (on the date of absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department, such regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account in fixing his seniority, subject to the condition that he will be given seniority from—
— the date he has been holding the post on deputation, or
— the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his parent department, whichever is later.
The fixation of seniority of an absorbee in accordance with the above principle will not, however, affect any regular promotions to the next higher grade made prior to the date of such absorption. In other words, it will be operative only in filling up of vacancies in higher grade taking place after such absorption.”
9. It may be noted here that sub-clause (iv) was added on 29-5-1986. We may also note here that the said OM along with its amendments from time to time is, admittedly, applicable for the purpose of determination of seniority in the present case. According to sub-clause (iv) of the said OM for purpose of determining seniority of an absorbee, if he was already holding on the date of absorption the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department, his regular service in the grade is to be counted. In the present case, Respondent 1 was holding a post of Science master on regular basis in an equivalent grade with effect from 1-1-1978. The grade of the said post was revised to Rs 620-1200 with effect from 1-1-1978. Thus, Respondent 1 was holding a post in a rather higher grade than the grade of post of Circle Organizer, in his parent department on regular basis with effect from the date the scale of that post stood revised which was 1-1-1978. Thus, it is clear from the Government's own instructions that Respondent 1 is entitled to be assigned seniority with effect from 1-1-1978.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant made a vain attempt to contend that the word “equivalent” in sub-clause (iv) of clause 7 of OM dated 22-12-1959 should be read as “equivalent post” and since Respondent 1 was not holding an equivalent post, he cannot be given benefit of the said OM. With reference to the equivalent post, the argument further proceeded that it should have similar duties etc. This argument, in our view, is totally untenable. The relevant word used in the government instructions is “grade”. It is not disputed that with effect from 1-1-1978, Respondent 1 was holding a post in the parent department on regular basis in a grade higher than the grade of the post of Circle Organizer which he held in the Department where he was absorbed.
11. In the present case, the relevant government instructions had come into force on 29-5-1986 while the tentative seniority list was issued on 24-10-1986. The revised seniority list was issued much later. It was held by this Court in Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor (2000) 1 SCC 644 that a person should get the benefit of length of service rendered on regular basis in equivalent grade for the purpose of fixation of his seniority. The following observation needs to be quoted:
“[A]ny rule, regulation or executive instruction which has the effect of taking away the service rendered by a deputationist in an equivalent cadre in the parent department while counting his seniority in the deputed post would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Hence, liable to be struck down.”
12. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that Respondent 1 is entitled to the benefit of service rendered by him on regular basis with effect from 1-1-1978. In other words, his seniority in the post of Circle Organizer is to be fixed after counting his service in his parent department from 1-1-1978 onwards. The appeal is, accordingly, without any merit.
13. The same is hereby dismissed.
CA No. 6428 of 2003 @ SLP (C) No. 5674 of 1997
14. Leave granted.
15. For the reasons stated in the judgment pronounced today in CA No. 2702 of 1997, this appeal is dismissed subject, however, to the modification that the Tribunal had granted benefit of seniority to Respondent 1 with effect from 28-9-1973 when he joined the Special Services Bureau on deputation. As held by us in CA No. 2702 of 1997, the benefit of length of service will be available to Respondent 1 only from the date when he came in the equivalent grade on regular basis, that is, grade equivalent to the post of Circle Organizer in the Bureau. This happened with effect from 1-1-1978 when the grade of the post held by him on regular basis in the Himachal Education Department was revised. Therefore, Respondent 1 in this appeal is entitled to seniority only with effect from 1-1-1978 and not from an earlier date as held by the Tribunal. To this extent, the judgment of the Tribunal stands modified. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Alert