TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms seniority list, rules in favor of respondents over appellant based on appointment dates.</h1> <h3>AMARJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (DR.) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the joint seniority list prepared by the State Government, granting seniority to respondents Nos. 3 to 19 over Dr. Jagjit Singh ... - Issues Involved:1. Proper rank in the joint seniority list post reorganization.2. Determination of inter se seniority in the integrated service.3. Validity of the State Government's order dated 4th December, 1967.Summary:Issue 1: Proper Rank in the Joint Seniority List Post ReorganizationThe appellant questioned whether he was given his proper rank in the joint seniority list of officers belonging to the Provincial Civil Medical Service, Class I (PCMS) after its reorganization on 15th July, 1964. Prior to this date, there were two separate services in Punjab: PCMS and Public Health Service, each with its own seniority and promotion channels. The appellant and Dr. Jagjit Singh were promoted to Assistant Director Health Services with retrospective effect from 25th April, 1964. Respondents Nos. 3 to 19 were promoted to Class I, PCMS by an order dated 8th April, 1964 but assumed charge only after 27th April, 1964.Issue 2: Determination of Inter Se Seniority in the Integrated ServiceUpon integration of PCMS and Public Health Service on 15th July, 1964, the State Government issued a memorandum dated 25th October, 1965, stating that seniority should be determined by the length of continuous service from the date of appointment, ensuring that the seniority in the parent list remains undisturbed. The appellant argued that his continuous service started from 25th April, 1964, making him senior to respondents Nos. 3 to 19, who assumed charge after this date. However, the State Government's order dated 4th December, 1967, reckoned the seniority of respondents Nos. 3 to 19 from 8th April, 1964, the date of their appointment order, irrespective of when they assumed charge.Issue 3: Validity of the State Government's Order Dated 4th December, 1967The appellant challenged the State Government's order, arguing it violated the principle of seniority laid down in the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the State Government's order, stating that the memorandum applied only to Deputy Directors and Assistant Directors in the Public Health Service on integration and did not cover Medical Officers already in PCMS Class I. The Supreme Court held that the principle of seniority based on the length of continuous service from the date of appointment was applicable to officers from both services. The Court found that the order dated 4th December, 1967, did not constitute a departure from this principle as the appointment of respondents Nos. 3 to 19 was effective from 8th April, 1964, making their continuous service longer than that of the appellant and Dr. Jagjit Singh.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the joint seniority list prepared by the State Government, giving seniority to respondents Nos. 3 to 19 over Dr. Jagjit Singh and the appellant, and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
