ATTAR SINGH KAUSHIK versus SECRETARY, COMMR. TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 11-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

}... 
r 
.... 
r 
~ 
/ 
r 
·---1 
) 
ATTAR SINGH KAUSHIK 
A 
v. 
SECRETARY, COMMR. TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT AND 
ANR. 
OCTOBER 1 I, 2007 
·B 
jS.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH REDI, JJ.) 
Service Law: 
c 
Seniority of depulationisls on absorption in borrowing 
department-Assisi ant Sub-Inspectors of Police-Deputed to Vigilance 
Deparlment of Transport Authority-HELD: Those who were senior 
in the parent department on equivalent post should continue to be 
senior in deputed post unless there exists a statutory rule to the D 
contrary-Besides, there is nothing on record to show that employees 
lFVrking on Executive Cadre alone, and not those lvorking in 
Ministerial cadre, were entitled to be absorbed in Transport 
Departmenl-Rules have righlly been interpreted by High Court-
EstablishmentandAdministrationRules-rr. 3.1, 3.4.1 and J0.2(ii). 
E 
Respondent no. 3 was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of 
Police on 3.6.1988 and the appellant on 3.2.1990. Both were deputed 
on 12.8.1991 to the VigilanceDepartmentoftheTransportAuthority, 
NCT, Delhi, but their absorption in the borrowing Department having 
taken place on different dates, a dispute regarding their seniority F 
arose wherein the High Court held that seniority of parties should 
be determined on the basis of their respective seniority in the parent 
department on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police which 
was the feeder cadre. Aggrieved, the affected employee filed the 
instant appeal. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l. It is axiomatic that those who were senior in the 
parent department on the equivalent post should continue to be 
73 
H 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A senior on the deputed post unless there exists a statutory rule to 
the contrary. A bare perusal of the relevant provisions would clearly 
go to show that the position of the employees concerned in the same 
or equivalent cadre on regular basis in parent department is a 
relevant factor for determining the inter se seniority. The date from 
B which the employee had been holding the post on deputation is 
another relevant factor. However, it has also been provided that date 
from which he has been appointed on regular post to the same or 
equivalent grade in his parent department, whichever is earlier would 
be considered for determining the inter se seniority. The Rules have _ 
c rightly been interpreted by the High Court keeping in view its 
purport and tenor. The Rules are required to be interpreted 
harmoniously so as to give effect to all the relevant provisions. 
Makers of the Rules furthermore must be presumed to have in mind, 
while laying down the same, to give justice to all concerned. 
D 
[Para 15] [81-F-H; 82-A] 
Sub-Inspector Roop/al & Anr. v. Lt. Governor Through Chief 
Secretmy, Delhi & Ors., [2000] 1 SCC 644, referred to. 
Jndu Shekhar Singh & Ors. v. State ofU.P. & Ors., [2006] 8 SCC 
E 129, held inapplicable. 
Swamy's Manual on 'Establishment and Administration', 
referred to. 
2. As regards the plea that the respondent belonging to 
F ministerial cadre was not eligible for appointment in Vigilance 
Department, it has not been disputed that the parties were working 
as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police in the parent department. It 
appears that only for the purpose of classification, they were 
mentioned as belonging to Ministerial or Executive cadre. It does 
G not appear that any eligibility criteria had been laid down for the 
purpose of absorption by the State in its Transport Department. 
Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the employees 
working in the Executive cadre alone were entitled to be absorbed 
in the Transport Department. From the Rules, it appears that the 
H only condition laid down for deputation was that employees concerned 
ATTARSINGHKAUSHIKv. SECRETARY,COMMR. 
75 
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT [SINHA, J.] 
should be working in the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. A 
[Para 6, 8 and 11] [76-G-H; 77-F-H; 78-A; 79-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4791 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 13.9.2006 of the High B 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.W.P. No. 6710 of2003. 
~ 
Naginder Rai, Naresh Kaushik, Lalita Kaushik and Arnita Kalkat 
for the Appellant. 
P.P. Khurana, M.K. Bhardwaj and Ashwani Bhardwaj for the c 
Respondents. 
The Judgmf~nt of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave Granted. 
2. Inter se seniority amongst the deputationists is in question in this D 
} 
app

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.