Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals Against High Court's Quashing of Retrospective Promotions in Service Law Case. The retrospective promotion of certain Overseers was found to be arbitrary and illegal, affecting the seniority of directly recruited Assistant Engineers.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from the promotion of certain Overseers in the Bihar Subordinate Engineering Service to Assistant Engineers in the Bihar Engineering Service, Class II. The Governor of Bihar had established a rule in 1958 reserving 25% of posts for promotion and 75% for direct recruitment. Respondents 1 to 5 were directly appointed as Assistant Engineers in 1961, while the appellants were promoted in 1962 and thereafter. The government issued orders in 1975, 1976, and 1977, retroactively promoting the appellants to dates prior to the appointments of the respondents, thereby altering their seniority. The respondents challenged these orders in the Patna High Court, which quashed them, stating that no one could be promoted retrospectively from a date when they were not part of the cadre. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling, emphasizing that seniority must be based on the date of initial entry into service and that retrospective promotions that adversely affect others are illegal. The court confirmed that the appellants could not be considered senior to the respondents as they were not in the cadre at the time of the latter's recruitment. The appeals were dismissed without costs.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Seniority - Retrospective Promotion - No person can be promoted with retrospective effect from a date when he was not born in the cadre so as to adversely affect others - Bihar Public Works Department Code, 1958, Rule 2 - The court held that the retrospective promotion of the appellants was arbitrary and illegal as it adversely affected the seniority of the directly recruited respondents who were appointed earlier. The High Court's decision to quash the government orders was upheld (Paras 418-420).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether seniority can be conferred on promotees retrospectively from a date they were not born in the cadre.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision to quash the retrospective promotions as arbitrary and illegal, confirming that seniority must be based on the date of initial entry into service.

Law Points

  • Service law
  • seniority
  • retrospective promotion
  • direct recruitment
  • arbitrary orders
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1991 LawText (SC) (04) 33

Civil Appeal Nos. 232-233 of 1978

1991-04-19

B.C. Ray, R.M. Sahai

1991 AIR 1244, 1991 SCR (2) 410, 1991 SCC (1) 334, JT 1991 (2) 279, 1991 SCALE (1) 748

Ashok Sen, Shankar Ghosh, Tapas Ray, Ms. S. Janani, Ms. Minakshi, Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, D. Goverdhan, Rakesh K. Khanna, Salman Khurshid, R.P. Singh, D.D. Mishra, Mrs. G.S. Mishra, D.P. Mukherjee

State of Bihar and Others

Akhouri Sachindra Nath and Others

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

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to retrospective promotions affecting seniority in service law.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of government orders promoting certain Overseers retrospectively.

Filing Reason

The promotions adversely affected the seniority of directly recruited Assistant Engineers.

Previous Decisions

The High Court quashed the government orders promoting the appellants retrospectively.

Issues

Whether seniority can be conferred on promotees retrospectively from a date they were not born in the cadre.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellants argued they were entitled to retrospective promotion based on the 25% reservation. The respondents contended that retrospective promotions were illegal as they adversely affected their seniority.

Ratio Decidendi

No person can be promoted with retrospective effect from a date when he was not born in the cadre, and seniority is reckoned from the date of initial entry into service.

Judgment Excerpts

The Government Orders dated 12.7.1975, 20.1.1976 and 9.4.1977 which purported to give promotion to the appellants retrospectively were arbitrary, illegal and inoperative. No person can be promoted with retrospective effect from a date when he was not born in the Cadre so as to adversely affect others. The judgment of the High Court in quashing the impugned Government Orders was, therefore, unexceptionable.

Procedural History

The appeals were filed against the common judgment and order dated 29th July, 1978 made by the Division Bench of the High Court at Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 756 of 1977.

Acts & Sections

  • Bihar Public Works Department Code: Rule 2
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Transmission Line Over Private Land, Upholds Validity of Section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003. The Court Held That the Provisions for Laying Electricity Lines Without Prior Consent Are Constitutional a...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Army Disciplinary Jurisdiction, Sets Aside High Court Stay on Attachment Order. High Court's Pre-emptive Intervention in Army Discipline Under Army Act 1950 and Army Instructions 30/86 Held Unwarranted as Respondent Was Posted O...