Supreme Court Allows Appeal by Employee in Service Seniority Dispute; Extends Benefits of Narender Chadha to Deputationist. Tribunal's Denial of Deemed Ad Hoc Appointment from 1969 Was Set Aside as Appellant Was Similarly Situated to Juniors Who Received Substantive Appointments.

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a service law matter concerning seniority and promotional benefits of an employee who served on deputation. The appellant, Shri Narayan Yeshwant Gore, joined the National Sample Survey Organisation as Inspector in 1950, was promoted to Scrutiny Inspector in 1954, and appointed as Assistant Superintendent in 1955. He was deputed to the Census Department at Nagpur from 6 March 1961 to 21 October 1969 as a Tabulation Officer, later redesignated as Superintendent. While in the Census Department, he was promoted as Assistant Director of Census Operations from 21 October 1969 and continued until 31 December 1974. His parent department considered that since he was in the Census Department and there were short-term vacancies only, it was not necessary to offer him the post of Assistant Director or ask him to return. His appointment as Assistant Director in the Census Department had the concurrence of both departments and the Union Public Service Commission. He returned to his parent department in 1975 and was appointed Assistant Director on ad hoc basis on 11 April 1975. In the meantime, his juniors in the parent department had been promoted on ad hoc basis from 1969. The Supreme Court's decision in Narender Chadha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1986) held that officers appointed as Assistant Directors on ad hoc basis in the organisation should be deemed appointed substantively from the date of their ad hoc appointment. This benefited the juniors who became senior to the appellant because the decision was confined to officers working in the parent department. The appellant was not considered as working there during his deputation. Consequently, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which recorded findings in his favour but held that it could not grant relief because the Supreme Court decision did not cover his situation. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the appellant was similarly situated to those granted the benefit of Narender Chadha. The Court noted that although the appellant worked in the Census Department, the posts in both departments were ad hoc, and the parent department itself had decided not to offer him the post due to short-term vacancies. Therefore, the appellant could not be prejudiced by his continuance on deputation. The Supreme Court extended the benefit of Narender Chadha to the appellant and deemed that he had been working as Assistant Director on ad hoc basis in the parent department in Grade IV since October 1969. He was also deemed to have been confirmed from the date his junior was confirmed. Furthermore, the Court found that a junior of the appellant, Shri Chaurasia, was promoted as Deputy Director on 22 May 1986 with seniority calculated from 1969 and given promotion from 17 March 1983. Since the post of Deputy Director was promotional and not selection, and the appellant was senior to Shri Chaurasia, the Court deemed the appellant promoted as Deputy Director from 17 March 1983. The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the appellant, who had retired, was entitled to all consequential benefits with no order as to costs.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Appeal allowed; Tribunal order set aside; appellant deemed to have been working as Assistant Director on ad hoc basis in parent Department in Grade IV since October 1969, deemed confirmed from the date his junior was confirmed, and deemed promoted as Deputy Director from 17 March 1983; entitled to all consequential benefits; no order as to costs.

Law Points