1999 (9) TMI 970 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court directs seniority list revision under Rule 5(1) & 5(2) for employees.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. It directed the official respondents to finalize the seniority list of all ... Interpretation of seniority determined with reference to dates of regular appointment - proviso to Rule 5(2) - seniority of officers recruited from the same source in posts held in parent department shall not be disturbed - absorption/regularisation under Rule 5(1) - length of service in equivalent post in parent department counts for seniority - statutory rules prevail over administrative memorandaAbsorption/regularisation under Rule 5(1) - interpretation of seniority determined with reference to dates of regular appointment - proviso to Rule 5(2) - seniority of officers recruited from the same source in posts held in parent department shall not be disturbed - length of service in equivalent post in parent department counts for seniority - Interpretation and application of Rule 5(2) and its proviso for determination of inter se seniority of employees absorbed under Rule 5(1). - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Sub rule (2) of Rule 5 is the operative provision for determining seniority of officers absorbed under Sub rule (1) and that seniority must be determined with reference to the dates of their regular appointment to the posts. Where officers are absorbed on the same date and seniority cannot be fixed solely by date of regular appointment, the proviso to Rule 5(2) applies: officers recruited from the same source are to have their seniority preserved as per the posts held by them in their parent departments. The Court explained that the relevant measure is length of service in the same or equivalent class, category or grade (i.e., service in the equivalent post in the parent department), not total length of service in any capacity. Any construction that excludes the benefit of prior regular service in an equivalent parent department post would run counter to settled service jurisprudence and create anomalies. The Court therefore rejected the Tribunal's interpretation that read 'source' as meaning the Central/State Government, High Court or Subordinate Courts rather than the method of recruitment (transfer on deputation/transfer) and concluded that all persons recruited from the same source (deputation/transfer) are entitled to the benefit of their period in equivalent posts in their parent departments when seniority is to be fixed. [Paras 6, 7, 11, 12]Sub rule (2) governs seniority; where officers absorbed on the same date cannot be differentiated by date of regular appointment, the proviso requires giving effect to service in equivalent posts in the parent department for inter se seniority.Statutory rules prevail over administrative memoranda - Official Memorandum dated 3.7.1986 - scope and applicability - Whether the Department of Personnel & Training's Official Memorandum dated 3.7.1986 displaces or governs determination of seniority where the Recruitment Rules (Rule 5(2) and its proviso) apply. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that where the Recruitment Rules provide the method for determining seniority, those statutory rules prevail and an administrative memorandum cannot override the rules. Although para 3.4.1 of the DOPT OM describes principles for deputationists later absorbed, the Rules - specifically Rule 5(2) and its proviso - hold the field in the present context. The Court observed that the Memorandum's 'whichever is later' formulation, if read to deny prior regular service in an equivalent parent post, would contradict established service law and the text of the Rules; consequently the Official Memorandum must yield to the statutory scheme. [Paras 7, 11]DOPT's OM cannot displace the method prescribed by Rule 5(2) and its proviso; statutory rule governs determination of seniority.Final Conclusion: Appeal allowed. The Tribunal's order is set aside. The respondents are directed to finalise a fresh seniority list of employees absorbed under Rule 5(1) strictly applying Rule 5(2) and its proviso, giving effect to service in equivalent posts in parent departments where necessary; interim incumbency of posts to continue until the fresh list is finalised. Issues Involved:1. Determination of inter se seniority of employees of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) recruited from different sources and absorbed on the same day.2. Interpretation of Rule 5(2) and its proviso of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B and C Miscellaneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989.3. Validity of the guidelines issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding seniority.4. Applicability of the Official Memorandum dated 3rd July, 1986 for determining seniority.5. Consideration of length of service in the parent department for seniority purposes.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of inter se seniority of employees of CAT:The dispute revolves around the determination of seniority among employees recruited from different sources but absorbed on the same day in CAT. One group of employees claims seniority from the date of their deputation to CAT, while another group argues for counting their service period in equivalent posts held in their parent departments before deputation and absorption in CAT.2. Interpretation of Rule 5(2) and its proviso:The appellant contends that Rule 5(2) and its proviso govern the method for determining seniority. Rule 5(2) states that the seniority of officers shall be determined with reference to the dates of their regular appointment to the posts concerned. The proviso adds that the seniority of officers recruited from the same source and in the posts held by them in the parent department shall not be disturbed. The Tribunal erroneously interpreted 'source' to mean different government bodies (Central/State Govt./High Court/Subordinate Courts) rather than the method of recruitment (promotion, transfer on deputation/transfer).3. Validity of the guidelines issued by CAT:The Central Administrative Tribunal found that the guidelines issued by it were not legal and thus not sustainable. The Tribunal itself doubted the correctness of the impugned guidelines and withdrew them. No party is aggrieved by such findings of the Tribunal.4. Applicability of the Official Memorandum dated 3rd July, 1986:The Tribunal referred to the Official Memorandum dated 3rd July, 1986, which prescribes that the seniority of a person initially taken on deputation and absorbed later should be counted from the date of absorption or the date from which they were appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in their parent department, whichever is later. However, the Supreme Court held that the Rules hold the field, and the Official Memorandum must give way in determining the inter se seniority of persons recruited to the service on the same date.5. Consideration of length of service in the parent department for seniority purposes:The Supreme Court emphasized that the length of service in the parent department should be considered for determining seniority. It held that the seniority of officers recruited from the same source should be determined by giving them the benefit of the equivalent post held by them in their parent departments. This interpretation aligns with the general principles of service jurisprudence and avoids creating anomalies.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. It directed the official respondents to finalize the seniority list of all employees recruited under Rule 5(1), strictly applying the provisions of Rule 5(2) and its proviso, considering the length of service in equivalent posts in their parent departments. All orders passed consequent to the Tribunal's impugned order were deemed non-est and not to be given effect. Fresh seniority lists were to be finalized within three months, and parties were permitted to hold their current posts until then. No costs were awarded.