CH. NARAYANA RAO versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 10-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 11 S.C.R. 205 
CH. NARAYANA RAO 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7903 of 2010) 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.J 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Seniority - Claim for counting ad-hoc service for seniority c 
- Stenographer engaged on ad-hoc basis - His services 
regularised from the date he passed the proficiency test - He 
claimed that he should be granted seniority from the date of 
initial appointment - HELO: No relief can be granted to the 
employee - His seniority has been correctly worked out only 0 
from the date he passed the stenography test as 
contemplated under the Rules approved by Staff Selection 
Commission -
Income Tax Department (Group C 
Recruitment) Rules, 1990. 
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association 
E 
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 1990 ( 2 ) SCR 
900 =(1990) 2 sec 715; State of West Bengal and others Vs. 
Aghore Nath Dey and Others 1'~J3 (2) SCR 919 = (1993) 3 
SCC 371; and Union of India Vs. Dharam Pal & Ors. 2009 
(2) SCR 193 = (2009) 4 sec 170 - relied on. 
F 
0. P. Sing/a and another etc. Vs. Union of India and 
Others 1985 (1) SCR 351 = (1984) 4 SCC 450; Narender 
Chadha and Others Vs. Union of India and Others 1986 ( 1 ) 
SCR 211 = (1986) 2 SCC 157 - distinguished. 
G 
Rudra Kumar Sain and Others Vs. Union of India and 
Ors. 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 573 = (2000) 8 SCC 25 -
referred to. 
205 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 
Case Law Reference: 
1990 (2) SCR 900 
relied on 
para 12 
1993 (2) SCR 919 
relied on 
para 14 
2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 573 referred to 
para 18 
1985 (1) SCR 351 
distinguished 
para 18 
1986 (1) SCR 211 
distinguished 
para 19 
2009 (2) SCR 193 
relied on 
para 21 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
7903 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.02.2007 of the High 
Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur in W.P. No. 388 of 2002. 
Sushi! Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Pratibha Jain for the 
Appellant. 
Brijender Chahar, B. Sunita Rao, Mohd. Mannan (for B.V. 
E Balaram Das) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
F 
2. The continual riven for seniority with regard to ad-hoc 
service rendered by the Appellant from the year 1981 till his 
regularisation in the year 1992 is required to be adjudicated 
in this Appeal by this Court. Further, we are called upon to 
consider whether the Appellant can be treated as Regular 
G Stenographer (OG - Ordinary Grade) from the year 1981 itself. 
3. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 
19.02.2007 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of 
Judicature, Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in Appellant's Writ 
Petition No. 388 of 2002, wherein and whereunder he had 
H challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, 
CH. NARAYANA RAO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
207 
[DEEPAK VERMA, J.] 
Principal Bench, Delhi, (hereinafter shall be referred to as 
A 
'Tribunal') passed in O.A. No. 413of1999 dated 02.07.2001. 
By the order of the Tribunal, the Appellant's Original Application 
filed by him claiming seniority for the period he had worked on 
ad-hoc basis till his regularisation was rejected. The order of 
the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the 
B 
High Court by dismissing the Appellant's Writ Petition vide the 
impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. 
4. Factual matrix of the case lies in narrow compass:-
Appellant was appointed on 26.11.1981 on the post of 
C 
Stenographer (OG). His appointment was against a temporary 
vacancy of stenographer, with the following rider: 
"His appointment is purely on an ad-hoc and temporary 
basis and his services may be terminated any time without 
0 
assigning any reasons." 
5. Thus, his letter of appointment clearly stipulated that it 
was not only ad-hoc but temporary too, terminable at any time 
without assigning any reasons. However, he continued in 
service, but after few years, an apprehension arose in the mind 
of the Appellant and other similarly situated stenographers that 
their services may be terminated. Thus, the Appellant and others 
were constrained to approach the Jabalpur Bench of the 
Tribunal by filing Original Application, claiming that the 
Respondent be restrained from terminating their services and 
they be regularised. Tribunal vide its order dated 23.10.1989 
directed that the services of the Appellant and other similarly 
situated stenographers, be not terminated, instead they be 
regularised su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.