Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose from a service dispute concerning the inter se seniority between a deputed employee and another employee in the Food and Civil Supplies Department of the State of Karnataka. The appellant, T. Shantharam, was appointed as a Second Division Clerk in the Revenue Department at Mangalore on 8 October 1963. On 26 December 1967, he was sent on deputation to the Food and Civil Supplies Department, then a wing of the Revenue Department, as an Assistant Civil Supplies Inspector. He was promoted as Second Grade Civil Supplies Inspector on 11 September 1968, a post stated to be equivalent to Sheristedar. The fifth respondent, R.K. Vasudev, was appointed as a Second Division Clerk on 22 January 1965 in the Food Wing of the Revenue Department, regularised on 30 September 1971, and promoted as Sheristedar on 17 June 1982. It was clear from these facts that the appellant was always senior to the fifth respondent at all stages of appointment and promotion. The appellant continued on deputation in the Food Wing. When the department sought to repatriate him, he filed Application No.6432/86 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. By order dated 28 January 1988, the Tribunal quashed the repatriation order and directed the respondents to absorb the appellant in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies in the post then held by him, noting that he had worked there since 1966 for about 22 years and had not been given proforma promotion in the Revenue Department. After absorption, the appellant was placed above the fifth respondent and promoted as Assistant Director on 1 January 1980 as per the judgment. The fifth respondent was also promoted. The only question before the Supreme Court was the inter se seniority between the appellant and the fifth respondent. Shri Rama Jois, learned senior counsel for the respondent, contended that the rules prescribed that on deputation the post should be equivalent to the post held in the parent department and that the appellant could not be transferred or deputed to a higher post in the Food Wing. The Court acknowledged that there was force in this contention, but observed that the appellant had worked uninterruptedly in the Food Department until the date of the Tribunal's order. Even if the initial deputation to a higher post was mistaken, the appellant had discharged his duties and higher responsibilities to the satisfaction of all concerned, and at that distance of time it was highly unjust to send him back to the parent department. The Tribunal was not right to interfere with the department's action in absorbing the appellant as per its own earlier order. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order dated 10 July 1994 passed by the Administrative Tribunal at the instance of the fifth respondent, confirmed the earlier order of absorption, and upheld the absorption and promotion given to the appellant. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Deputation and Absorption - Irregular deputation to higher post does not invalidate absorption after long service - No specific Act or section cited - The appellant was deputed to a higher post in the Food and Civil Supplies Department; although rules required equivalence with the parent department post, his uninterrupted service and satisfactory discharge of duties for about 22 years made it unjust to repatriate him. Held that the Administrative Tribunal's earlier order of absorption should be upheld and the impugned order interfering with it set aside (Paras 1-2). B) Administrative Law - Estoppel and Acquiescence - Binding effect of earlier judicial order - No specific Act or section cited - The Administrative Tribunal had directed absorption in 1988 after quashing repatriation; the department complied and the appellant was placed senior. The Tribunal later interfered at the instance of the fifth respondent. Held that the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its own earlier order and the absorption and promotion must stand (Paras 1-2). C) Service Law - Seniority - Inter se seniority between deputed employee and regular employee - No specific Act or section cited - The appellant was senior at all levels to the fifth respondent; long service in deputed post and absorption order justified placing him above fifth respondent. Held that the seniority assigned to appellant cannot be disturbed (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Administrative Tribunal was justified in interfering with the absorption and inter se seniority of the appellant despite his long uninterrupted service in the deputed post and the earlier binding order of absorption passed by the Tribunal.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal dated 10-07-1994, confirmed the earlier order of absorption dated 28-01-1988, and upheld the absorption and promotion given to the appellant. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Long continuous service
- Equivalence of posts on deputation
- Binding nature of earlier judicial order
- Estoppel by conduct
- Administrative Tribunal cannot interfere with its own final order
- Service jurisprudence on absorption
