Case Note & Summary
The Union of India and General Manager, Central Railway filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai dated 3.8.2007. The CAT had allowed the original application of the respondent, Ramesh Kumar Mishra, quashing the order dated 11.12.2003 and directing the petitioners to count his period of adhoc service as Horticulture Inspector towards seniority for promotion to the post of Divisional Engineer (Horticulture). The respondent was initially appointed as Horticulture Inspector on 9.11.1972 through direct recruitment and was later put to officiate in a higher grade on 21.7.1978. A notification for the post of Assistant Engineer (Horticulture) was issued on 5.12.1997 but received no response. The Railway Board was requested to relax qualification conditions. The Tribunal held that the adhoc service should be treated as regular for eligibility for promotion to senior scale, antedating the promotion to 1.11.1996 instead of 3.9.2002. The High Court, after hearing both sides and relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Direct Recruitment Class II Engineering Officers' Association vs. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715, dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Adhoc Service - Counting of adhoc service for promotion - The respondent was appointed as Horticulture Inspector on adhoc basis and later regularised. The issue was whether the adhoc period should be counted for seniority in the promoted post. The Tribunal directed counting of adhoc service, which was upheld by the High Court relying on Direct Recruitment Class II Engineering Officers' Association vs. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the period of adhoc service rendered by the respondent as Horticulture Inspector should be counted towards seniority for promotion to the post of Divisional Engineer (Horticulture).
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT order dated 3.8.2007.
Law Points
- Adhoc service counts for seniority if regularisation is not challenged
- Administrative Tribunals Act
- 1985
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (11) 29
Writ Petition No.1098 of 2008
Anoop V. Mohta, A.S. Gadkari
Mr. Suresh Kumar with Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for the Petitioners, Mr. G.S. Walia for the Respondent
Union of India, General Manager, Central Railway
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Central Administrative Tribunal regarding counting of adhoc service for seniority.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the CAT order dated 3.8.2007 which directed counting of adhoc service for seniority.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the CAT order that allowed the respondent's original application.
Previous Decisions
CAT order dated 3.8.2007 allowed the respondent's original application, quashing order dated 11.12.2003 and directing counting of adhoc service.
Issues
Whether the period of adhoc service rendered by the respondent should be counted towards seniority for promotion to the post of Divisional Engineer (Horticulture).
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the respondent was appointed as Horticulture Inspector on adhoc basis and later regularised, and that the adhoc period should not count for seniority.
Respondent argued that the adhoc service should be counted as per the CAT order.
Ratio Decidendi
Adhoc service rendered prior to regularisation must be counted for seniority in the promoted post, as per the principle laid down in Direct Recruitment Class II Engineering Officers' Association vs. State of Maharashtra.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Tribunal has passed the operative order as under: '14. In this backdrop, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.12.2003 and direct the responders to treat the period of ad hoc service as regular towards eligibility for promotion to senior scale and accordingly his date of promotion to Senior Scale will be antedated and treated as 01.11.1996 instead of 3.9.2002 with all consequential benefits.'
Procedural History
The respondent filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, which was allowed on 3.8.2007. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:
