LexAMARJEET SINGH & ORS. versus DEVI RATAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.G.R. 1010 A AMARJEET SINGH & ORS. ~ " v. DEVI RATAN & ORS. ~ (Civil Appeal Nos.5790-92 of 2002) NOVEMBER 18, 2009 ' I B [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Service Law: i- )._ l Seniority-Employees promoted by two successive DPCs under different criteria, but postings given to all on one and the c same day - Seniority list prepared showing the employees promoted by earlier DPC as senior to those promoted later - Challenged, claiming that postings to all given on one and the same day, the seniority in the feeder cadre should be maintained - Held: High Court has misdirected itself D considering that both set$ of officers were given notional promotion from one and the same date, which, in fact, is not factually correct- Keeping in view r.3(1) of the U.P. Assistant Excise Commissioners Service Rules, 1992, the year of recruitment is to be considered for the purpose of fixing inter E se seniority of the officers taking into consideration the officers promoted within a period of 12 months from 1st day of July of the year - Therefore, if promotions have retrospectively been given to a particular set of officers in the year 1995 and to another set of offices in the years 1997 and 1998, they cannot be treated at par and cannot be treated as equals merely because posting of all of them had been made on the same ,, F day - An officer cannot be granted seniority prior to his birth in the cadre adversely affecting the seniority of the others who have been appointed prior to him - In the instant case, promotions had been made by two different DPCs held on J ' 19.12.1998 and 22. 1.1999 - Both the DPCs had made ' G promotions under different rules on different criteria and their promotions had been made with retrospective effect with ,_ " different dates notionally- Promotions of the employees made .. under the merit criteria having not Deen challenged, the H 1 OHJ AMARJEET SINGH & ORS. v. DEVI RATAN & ORS. 1011 seniority which is consequential to the promotions could not A " ~ be challenged without challenging the promotions, as "' challenging the consequential order without challeng;ng the basic order is not permissible - In the absence of challenge to the promotion, relief of quashing the consequential seniority list could not have been granted - Order of High Court quashing B the seniority list set aside- U.P. Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 - r.6 - U.P. Assistant Excise Commissioners -· Service Rules, 1972 - r.3(1) . .). Interim Orders: Appeal before Supreme Court challenging order of High c Court- Interim stay granted by Supreme Goud subject to final decision in appeal - Appeal dismissed but consequential steps to revert the writ petitioners not taken by department - Writ petitioners claiming seniority on the basis of their service rendered on the promotional post because of the interim order D granted by Court- Held: No litigant can derive any benefit from .,. mere pendency of case in the court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the writ petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically - The maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit', which means that the act of court shall E prejudice no one, becomes applicable in the instant case - In such a fact situation, the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by an act of court - The factor attracting applicability of restitution is not the act of the court being wrongful or a mistake or error committed by the court; F the test is whether on account of an act of the party persuading the court to pass an order held at the end as not sustainable, has resulted in one party gaining an advantage it would not have otherwjse earned, or the other party has suffered an impoverishment which it would not have suffered but for the order of the court and the act of such party- There is nothing G wrong in the parties demanding being placed in the same -!lo position in which they would have been had the court not J intervened by its interim order when at the end of the proceedings the court pronounces its judicial verdict which does not match with and countenance its own interim verdict - H 1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A The employees who were promoted on the basis of merit criteria are entitled for the relief purely on the e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.