Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a dispute over seniority in the cadre of Storekeeper in the Naval Department. The respondent, G. Gopalakrishna Pillai, was given ad hoc appointments to the post of Storekeeper at Goa and continued in such ad hoc capacity until he was regularised in the post. The Naval Department gave him fitment in the pay scale of Storekeeper with credit for officiation, but fixed his seniority only from the date of regularisation, not from the date of initial ad hoc appointment. Aggrieved by this, the respondent made a representation which was rejected. He then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which by order dated June 2, 1994 in O.A. No. 1507 of 1993 directed that he be given seniority from the date he started officiating as Storekeeper and all consequential benefits. The appellants, Chief of Naval Staff and Another, challenged the Tribunal's order. The Supreme Court considered the short question whether ad hoc service could be counted for seniority. The appellants argued that the ad hoc appointment orders clearly stated that such appointment would not confer any right to claim seniority, and that settled law in the absence of a specific service rule did not permit counting of ad hoc service for seniority, relying on Union of India v. S.K. Sharma. The respondent contended that since he had continuously officiated on ad hoc basis and was ultimately regularly selected, the entire period of continuous officiation should count for seniority, relying on Union of India v. Ansusekhar Guin. The Court distinguished Ansusekhar Guin, noting that the principle there applied only if the ad hoc or temporary appointment had been made by a regularly constituted body for holding selection. In the instant case, the respondent was not selected by such a body for ad hoc appointment; rather, he was holding ad hoc posts when he got regularly selected. The Court also held that the Tribunal wrongly relied on condition 'B' from Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officers Association because the initial ad hoc appointment was not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, and made no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Counting of Ad Hoc Service - Not mentioned Act - The respondent claimed seniority from the date of initial ad hoc appointment as Storekeeper; the Court held that in the absence of a specific service rule and where the ad hoc appointment was not made by a regularly constituted selection body, ad hoc service cannot be counted for seniority; relied on Union of India v. S.K. Sharma and Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officers Association. Held that the Central Administrative Tribunal's order was unsustainable and set aside (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether ad hoc service as Storekeeper rendered prior to regular selection and appointment can be counted for determining seniority in the cadre of Storekeeper in the absence of a specific rule and where the ad hoc appointment was not made by a regularly constituted selection body
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated June 2, 1994 in O.A. No. 1507 of 1993 set aside; no order as to costs
Law Points
- Ad hoc service cannot be counted for determining seniority in the absence of a specific rule
- seniority must be from the date of regularisation
- continuous officiation on ad hoc basis does not confer seniority unless appointment was by a regularly constituted selection body
- condition B of Direct Recruits not applicable if initial ad hoc appointment not made by following rules
