Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/12/1995
BENCH:
RAY, G.N. (J)
BENCH:
RAY, G.N. (J)
NANAVATI G.T. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (1) 521 1995 SCALE (7)340
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The short
question which arises for consideration is whether or not
the Central Administrative Tribunal by the impugned judgment
dated June 2, 1994 passed in O.A.No.1507 of 1993 has
correctly decided the question of seniority of the
respondent Sri G.Gopalkrishnan Pillai. It is an admitted
case that the said Sri pillai was given ad hoc appointments
to the post of Storekeeper at Goa and while he had been
continuing in such ad hoc appointments, he was regularised
in the post of Storekeeper. The Naval Department has given
appropriate fitment in the scale of a Storekeeper to Sri
Pillai after giving credit for the officiation in the said
post but so far as the seniority to the cadre of Storekeeper
is concerned, the seniority has been given only from the
date when he was regularised in the post of Storekeeper. Sri
Pillai felt aggrieved for not getting seniority by computing
the period spent on ad hoc service as a Storekeeper.
Claiming seniority by reckoning ad hoc service, he made a
representation to the Naval Department which was rejected.
Thereafter, the Central Administrative Tribunal was
moved by the respondent contending inter alia that as he had
been officiating on ad hoc basis in the post of Storekeeper
continuously till he was selected and regularly appointed to
the post of Storekeeper, the entire period of continues
officiation would ensure to his benefit for the purpose of
fixing seniority in the cadre of Storekeeper. Such
contention has been accepted by the Central Administrative
Tribunal by the impugned order. It has been directed that
Sri Pillai should be given seniority to the post of
Storekeeper from the date he started officiating in the said
post and all consequential benefits flowing from such
seniority should also be given to him.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
has submitted before us that ad hoc appointments to the said
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
post of Storekeeper had been given to the respondent by
clearly indicating in the orders of ad hoc appointment that
such appointment on ad hoc basis would not confer any right
to claim seniority in the said post. That apart, law is well
settled that in the absence of any specific rule of service
by which a person holding an ad hoc post will be entitled to
get seniority to the said post if he is later on selected on
a regular basis to the post. The holder of ad hoc post is
not entitled to claim seniority on the basis of ad hoc
service. In support of such contention reliance has been
made to a decision of this Court in Union of India & anr.
Vs. S.K. Sharma (1992 (2) SCC 728). It has been held in the
said decision that ad hoc service cannot be counted for
determining seniority. In the said decision, the earlier
decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct
Recruits Class II Engineering Officers Association Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others (1990 (2) SCC 715) has also been
referred to and relied on.
The learned counsel for the respondent engaged by the
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, has, however, submitted
that it is an admitted position in this case that Sri Pillai
has been regularly selected to the post of Storekeeper and
appointed to such post. Prior to such selection and
appointment to the post of Storekeeper on regular basis. Sri
Pillai had continuously officiated in the post of
Storekeeper on the basis of ad hoc appointments given to
him. If an employee is ultimately selected on a regular
basis to a post in which he had continuously officiated,
then even if such employee had held the post only on ad hoc
basis, he will be entitled to claim seniority from the date
of ad hoc appointment. In support of such contention, the
learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in
Union of India Vs. Ansusekhar Guin and others (1989 (1) SCC
283). It, however, appears to us that in the said case, this
Court has only reiterated the principle that if an employee
had been appointed on ad hoc or temporary basis exceeding
the quite fixed for such appointment such employee would be
entitled to get the credit of continuous officiation in
fixing seniority provided such ad hoc or temporary
appointment had been made by a regularly constituted body
for holding the selection of the candidates to be appointed.
In the instant case, the respondent Sri Pillai was not
selected by a regularly constituted selection body for
giving ad hoc appointments to the post of the Storekeeper
and on such selection he had continued in ad hoc service
till regular appointment to such post was made. On the
contrary, the case of Sri Pillai is that while he had been
holding ad hoc posts, he got selected on a regular basis to
the said post of Storekeeper. Hence, the decision relied on
by the learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable
in the facts and circumstances of this case. It also appears
to us that the Tribunal in passing the impugned order has
relied on condition ‘B’ as referred to in the decision of
the Constitution Bench in Direct Recruits Class II
Engineering Officers’ Association (supra) in support of the
impugned order. In our view, the principle enunciated in the
said case is not applicable in the facts of this case
because the initial appointment of Sri Pillai by way of ad
hoc arrangement, was not made by following the procedure
laid down by the Rules as referred to in Condition-B in the
said decision. Hence, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be
sustained. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside
the impugned order without however any order as to costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3