2001 (5) TMI 984 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies seniority rules: ad hoc service not counted, regular promotion key.

Swapan Kumar Pal and Ors. Versus Samitabhar Chakraborthy and Ors.

The Supreme Court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench's judgment and affirmed the seniority list published on 02.11.1989. Ad hoc ... - Issues Involved:1. Rule governing inter se seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerk.2. Validity of ad hoc promotion as regular promotion.3. Whether regular promotion dates back to the date of ad hoc promotion.4. Applicability of the decision in Anuradha Mukherjee's case.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Rule Governing Inter Se Seniority in the Cadre of Senior Clerk:The seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerk is governed by Paragraph 302 of the Railway Establishment Manual (IREM). This rule states that the seniority among incumbents of a post is determined by the date of regular promotion after due process for promotees and the date of joining the working post for direct recruits. The court concluded that the ad hoc services rendered by the respondents cannot be counted for seniority, as the seniority should be reckoned from the date of regular promotion after due process of selection.2. Validity of Ad Hoc Promotion as Regular Promotion:The court examined Paragraphs 213 and 214 of the IREM, which stipulate that promotions, whether to selection or non-selection posts, must be based on fitness determined through prescribed tests. The respondents were promoted on an ad hoc basis due to the non-holding of suitability tests at regular intervals. However, the court held that such ad hoc promotions cannot be considered regular promotions after due process of selection. The suitability test is a condition precedent for regular promotion, and without it, the promotion remains ad hoc and cannot confer seniority benefits.3. Whether Regular Promotion Dates Back to the Date of Ad Hoc Promotion:The court addressed whether regular promotion, once granted, could be considered retroactively effective from the date of ad hoc promotion. It concluded that there is no provision in the rules that allows for regular promotion to date back to the ad hoc promotion date. Thus, the seniority can only be counted from the date of regular promotion after due process of selection, not from the date of ad hoc promotion.4. Applicability of the Decision in Anuradha Mukherjee's Case:The court referred to its earlier decision in Anuradha Mukherjee's case, which held that appointees de hors the rules cannot claim seniority from their initial ad hoc appointment but only from the date of regular selection and appointment. The court found that this precedent applies to the present case, as the ad hoc promotions without suitability tests were de hors the rules. Consequently, the seniority of the respondents cannot be counted from their ad hoc promotion dates.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, and affirmed the seniority list published on 02.11.1989. The court held that the ad hoc period cannot be counted for seniority purposes, and seniority must be determined based on regular promotion after due process. The appeals were allowed, and the seniority list as on 01.6.1989 was affirmed. The court also noted that the regularisation of ad hoc promotions, as a one-time measure for retiral benefits, does not affect the determination of seniority according to the established rules.