Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved Union of India and six respondents who were recruited as Assistant Compilors-LDCs during 1980 and confirmed in those posts by order dated 26.5.1989. During the 1991 Census operations, 21 posts of Computers were created on a short-term temporary basis after considering increased quantum of work. These posts were sanctioned for a fixed period and their continuation depended on further sanction. The temporary posts created for the 1991 Census continued till December 1993, and from 1.1.1994 they ceased to exist. Based on recommendations of a Departmental Promotion Committee, the respondents were promoted to the newly created temporary posts of Computers by order dated 10.10.1990. The promotion order expressly stated that promotions were on a regular basis in temporary capacity and for a fixed term from 11.10.90 to 28.2.91, with employees placed on probation. The term was subsequently extended. By letter dated 30.11.1993, the Registrar General informed all Directors of Census Operations that all posts created in connection with the 1991 Census were at present sanctioned upto 31.12.1993 only and would stand abolished on that date, and no proposals for extension need be sent. Consequently, by order dated 30.12.1993, the respondents and several other officials were reverted to their original Assistant Compilor posts with effect from 31.12.1993 (Afternoon). The respondents challenged the reversion before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the reversion on the ground that no order for abolition of posts of Computers had been produced before it, although a counter indicated that 21 temporary posts of Computers were created for the 1991 Census and were no longer available after 1.1.1994. Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, Union of India relied on the Registrar General's letter dated 30.11.1993 to establish abolition; respondents argued that orders of satisfactory completion of probation dated 12.4.1993 precluded reversion. The Supreme Court held that the promotion order itself unmistakably indicated temporary capacity, and the fact of abolition was established by the letter. Therefore, respondents could not claim continuance after abolition of the temporary posts. The Court answered the main question in the negative, allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal order, and made no order as to costs. The Court clarified that it was not deciding the factual question whether any juniors were retained causing prejudice to respondents, as that matter was left open by the Tribunal to be agitated independently.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Temporary Promotion and Reversion - No right to continue in abolished temporary posts - Not mentioned - Respondents were promoted on temporary basis to posts of Computers created for fixed period in connection with 1991 Census. The posts were abolished effective 31.12.1993 by Registrar General's letter dated 30.11.1993. Respondents challenged reversion before Central Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the reversion. Supreme Court held that the temporary status of promotion and abolition of posts precluded any claim to continuance; satisfactory completion of probation did not confer a regular right. Held that reversion orders were valid and appeals allowed (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondents who were promoted temporarily in posts created for a specific period can claim the right of continuance in said posts even after expiry of the said period?
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed appeals, set aside Tribunal order, held that respondents cannot claim continuance after abolition of temporary posts. No order as to costs. Question of whether juniors were retained causing prejudice left open.
Law Points
- Temporary promotees in posts created for a fixed period have no right to continuance after expiry of that period
- abolition of temporary posts removes basis for continuance
- satisfactory completion of probation does not confer regular status or continued service
- reversion orders consequent to abolition are valid
- question of retaining juniors left open
