Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA KUNJ BIHARI SHARMA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
TARA CHAND SHARMA & ORS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/08/1998
BENCH:
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
3950-3953
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 1998
-----------------------------------------------
(Arising out of SLP(c) Nos. 1113-1116 OF 1996)
JUDGMENT
PATTANAIK, J.
Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
The inter se seniority between respondents nos. 1 to 4
who had been promoted to the post of Computors on regular
basis on 20.8.90 and 10.10.90 and the ad hoc appointees to
the said posts respondent nos. 5 to 37 herein whose services
were regularised on 14.3.1991 is the subject matter for
consideration in these appeals. It transpires from the
available materials on record that certain posts having been
created for 1981 Census in the cadre of Computors
respondents nos. 5 to 37 were appointed against those posts
but even after the Census operation was over those posts
continued and respondents nos. 5 to 37 were also continued.
Ultimately the Registrar General of India after due
consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training
regularised those appointees by letter dated 12th March,
1991, and it was also indicated that the past services
rendered by them before regularisation would also count for
their seniority as well as eligibility for promotion to the
higher grad. Respondents nos. 1 to 4, on the other hand, had
been promoted as Computors on regular basis between the
period 20th August, 1990 to 10th October, 1990. When the
seniority list was drawn up on 12th April, 1993 respondents
nos. 5 to 37 having been placed above respondents nos. 1 to
4 a representation was made by the said respondents nos. 1
to 4. The representation having been rejected they
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal at Jaipur by
filling OA Nos. 93, 121, 122 and 172 of 1994. The Tribunal
by the impugned judgment being of the view that the ad hoc
appointees are not entitled to get their services as ad hoc
for the purpose of counting the seniority since the
appointment itself was dehors the rules allowed these OAs
and held that respondent nos. 1 to 4 to be senior to
respondents nos. 5 to 37 in the cadre of Computor. It may by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
noticed at this stage that the promotion of respondents nos.
1 to 4 to the post of Computor was not on a substantive
basis and after expiry of the sanction of the posts of
Computor created for 1991 census on account of posts of
Computor created for 1991 census on account of non
availability of posts of Computor in the cadre, respondents
nos. 1 to 4 were reverted. The said order of reversion was
assailed before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the
Tribunal had annulled the order of reversion. But the
aforesaid order of the Tribunal being assailed in this Court
by the Union of India in C.A. Nos. 9572-75 of 1995 by
judgment dated 19th October, 1995 this Court came to hold
that the fact of abolition of posts having been established
and the respondents nos. 1 to 4 herein having been
temporarily promoted to those posts, which have been
abolished, they cannot raise any objection for the
consequential reversal order. The order of the Tribunal was
accordingly set aside and the appeal of the Union of India
was allowed thereby. The order of reversion of respondents
nos. 1 to 4 herein from the posts of Computor to their
substantive post was approved by this Court. Though
opportunity has been given to said respondents nos. 1 to 4
to indicate whether they are still continuing as Computor
but no such assertion has been made. Though Mr. Krishnamani,
learned senior counsel appearing for respondents nos. 1 to 4
contended that would be a matter which would ultimately be
decided only when the seniority matter is finalised we are
unable to accept this contention since we find that the
respondents nos. 1 to 4 are no longer continuing as
Computors, their order of reversion having been up held by
this Court, as already referred to, and therefore, the
question of determining their inter se seniority with
respondent nos. 5 to 37 in the cadre of Computor would not
arise.
In the aforesaid premises, it is not necessary for us
to examine the larger question as to whether the order of
Registrar General directing that the services of respondents
nos. 5 to 37 even prior to regularisation can be counted for
the purpose of their seniority in the cadre. On the admitted
position, therefore, while the respondents nos. 5 to 37 are
still continuing as Computor their services having been
regularised by the order of Registrar General in
consultation with the Department of Personnel respondents
nos. 1 to 4 have been reverted from the said cadre and
necessarily therefore, respondents nos. 5 to 37 would be
held to be senior in the cadre of Computors. The impugned
judgment of the Tribunal in the aforesaid OAs is set aside
and the appeals of the Union of India are allowed and the
OAs stand dismissed.
The appeals arising out SLP@Nos. 1113-1116 of 1996 for
the reasons already indicated are also allowed. But in the
circumstances there will be no order as to costs.