ASIS KUMAR SAMA NT& ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 12-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ASIS KUMAR SAMA NT A & ORS. 
A, 
v. 
ST A TE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
JULY 12, 2007 
[A.K. MATHUR AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: Seniority-State Forest Service-Appointment by 
promotion as also by direct recruitment-The question: Whether the officers 
promoted to the service can en bloc be given seniority retrospectively over C 
the officers directly recruitted to the sen:ice-Referred to the larger Bench. 
The instant appeal arose out of the controversy whether the officers 
promoted in 1991 to the State Forest Service can en bloc be given seniority 
retrospectively w.e.f. 31.12.1990 over the officers directly recruited to the 
said service. Noticing the conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court on the D 
issue, the Court 
HELD: In view of conflicting views expressed by this Court, it would be 
appropriate to refer this case to a larger Bench so that the controversy can 
finally be resolved and put to rest. Therefore, the Registry is directed to place 
the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution ofa E 
' 
larger Bench. (Para 71 (332-A-B) 
Devi Prasad & Ors. v. Government of A.P. & Ors., (19801 Supp. SCC 
206; U.D. Lama and Ors. v. State of Sikkim & Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 111; State 
of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. KS. Af_uralidhar & Ors. Etc., (1992) 2 SCC 241; 
Ram Pal Malik v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR (1994) SC 2481; State of F 
Gujarat v. CG. Desai, (1974) i SCC 188; G.S. Venkata Reddy & Ors. Etc. 
etc. v. Government of A.P., AIR (1993) SC 2306; K. Narayanan & Ors. v. State 
of Karnataka & Ors., (I 994 I Su pp. 1 SCC 44; State oj Bihar & Ors. v. Sri 
Akhouri Sachindra Nath & Ors., AIR (1991) SC 1244 and Uttaranchal Forest 
Rangers' Association (Direct Recruit) & Ors. v. State of UP. & Ors., (2006) G 
10 sec 346, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 133 l of200l. 
From the Final Judgment & Order dated 24.3.1999 of the High Court at 
329 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 8 S.C.R. 
Calcutta in W.P.S.T. No. 33(W) of 1997. 
Arijit Bhattacharjee for the Appellants. 
Sarla Chandra, (N.P.) Ajay Sharma, T.C. Sharma and Nelam Sharma for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A.K. MA THUR, J. I. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24th 
March, 1999 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in W.P.S. T. 
No. 33 of 1997 whereby the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition. This 
Writ Petition was filed against the order passed by the West Bengal State 
Administrative Tribunal in Case No. TA 1293/1996 on 21st April, 1997, wherein 
11 petitioners (appellants herein) were recruited directly to State Forest Service 
in March, 1990. Respondent Nos. 4 to 19 to the original petition were promoted 
to the State Forest Service vide Notification No. 940 dated_ l .2.1991. They were 
given retrospective seniority with effect from 3 lst December, 1990, According 
to Rule 6(2) of West Bengal Service (Determination of Service) Rules, 1981 
(hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules'), the promotee shall be en bloc 
senior to tile direct recruits of the same year. Consequently , the respondents 
4 to 19 who were promoted in 1991 were given retrospective seniority w .e.f 
31.12.1990. Therefore, as per Rule 6(2) of the Rules, those respondents 4 to 
19 got the seniority over directly recruited candidates. That was challenged 
by the direct recruits of the State Forest Service before the Tribunal. The State 
Tribunal upheld the grant of retrospective seniority and rejected their 
contention. Aggrieved against this, present writ petition was filed under 
Article 226 of the Constitution of India by direct recruits which was rejected 
by the Division Bench of tbe High Court. Hence the present appeal by the 
direct recruits. 
2. The main question involved in this matter is whether such retrospective 
promotion or seniority can be granted or not? 
3. The moot question came up before this Court in various matters. But 
G there is a conflict of opinion on this issue. Some judgments have recognized 
the retrospective seniority and in some cases it has not been accepted. 
4. Normally, there are two modes of service i.e. one by way of recruitment 
or other by way of promotion. Sometimes the process of direct recruitment 
H is carried on but the recruitment through promotion is held up on account of 
( 
' 
-~ 
1 
~-' 
j. 
...,. 
,. 
-~ 
..I 
ASIS KUMAR SAMANTA i·. STA TE OF WEST BENGAL [MA THUR, J.] 
331 
dispute in the se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.