Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Regarding Seniority in Ad-Hoc Service — No Relief Granted for Counting Past Service.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from a dispute regarding the seniority of the Appellant, who was appointed as a Stenographer (OG) on an ad-hoc basis in 1981 and regularised in 1992 after passing a proficiency test. The Appellant challenged the rejection of his claim for seniority for the period he served ad-hoc, arguing that he should be treated as a Regular Stenographer from the date of his initial appointment. The Tribunal had previously ruled against him, affirming that his appointment was temporary and ad-hoc, which was upheld by the High Court. The Respondents contended that all similarly appointed individuals were treated alike and that the Appellant's initial appointment did not comply with the necessary recruitment rules. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal principles surrounding ad-hoc appointments and seniority, referencing precedents that established that ad-hoc service cannot be counted for seniority unless the appointment was made according to the rules. The Court concluded that the Appellant's claim for seniority from the date of his initial appointment was impermissible, as he had not cleared the requisite examination at that time. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Seniority - Counting of Ad-hoc Service - Income Tax Department (Group C Recruitment Rules, 1990) - The Appellant's initial appointment was ad-hoc and temporary, thus his seniority could not be counted from that date. The court held that the Appellant's officiation in the post cannot be considered for seniority as it was not made according to the rules and was a stop-gap arrangement (Paras 13-23).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Appellant can be treated as Regular Stenographer from the year 1981 and claim seniority for ad-hoc service rendered until regularisation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Appellant's seniority could only be counted from the date he passed the proficiency test, which was on 12.04.1992.

Law Points

  • Seniority
  • Ad-hoc Appointment
  • Regularisation
  • Recruitment Rules
  • Proficiency Test
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (SC) (09) 18

Civil Appeal No. 7903 of 2010

2010-09-10

Deepak Verma, Dalveer Bhandari

Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, B.S. Chahar, B. Sunita Rao, Mohd. Mannan

Ch. Narayana Rao

Union of India & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding seniority and regularisation of service.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought recognition of seniority from the date of initial appointment.

Filing Reason

Claim for seniority based on ad-hoc service prior to regularisation.

Previous Decisions

Tribunal and High Court dismissed the Appellant's claims.

Issues

Whether the Appellant's ad-hoc service can be counted for seniority Whether the Appellant can be treated as Regular Stenographer from 1981

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued for seniority from initial appointment date Respondents contended that initial appointment was ad-hoc and temporary

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that ad-hoc appointments cannot be counted for seniority unless made according to the rules, and the Appellant's initial appointment was temporary and did not comply with the necessary recruitment procedures.

Judgment Excerpts

His appointment is purely on an ad-hoc and temporary basis and his services may be terminated any time without assigning any reasons. The Government may examine and review the position as whether it is possible to regularize the services of these petitioners by relaxing the rule requiring their recruitment through the Staff Selection Commission. It cannot be disputed that the initial appointment of the Appellant was only ad-hoc and for a temporary period.

Procedural History

The Appellant filed a Writ Petition against the Tribunal's order, which was dismissed by the High Court. The Tribunal had previously ruled against the Appellant's claim for seniority based on his ad-hoc service.

Acts & Sections

  • Income Tax Department (Group C Recruitment Rules):
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against RPSC's Decision on Examination Eligibility. The appellant was found ineligible to participate in the 1991 examination as he had exhausted his attempts as an open market candidate.
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Upholds Disciplinary Punishment of Police Officer for Drunkenness in Court; Sets Aside Writ Court's Interference. Absence of Blood and Urine Tests Not Fatal in Departmental Proceedings When Drunkenness Certificate and Judicial Magis...