CHIEF ENGINEER AND SECRETARY, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF CHANDIGARH ETC. versus K.S. BRAR & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 797 · Decided: 01-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

CHIEF ENGINEER AND SECRETARY, ENGINEERING 
A 
DEPARTMENT,"FOR AND ON BEHALF OF CHANDIGARH 
ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH ETC.· 
y 
v. 
K.S. BRAR & ANR. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 
B 
[MURARI MOHON DUTT AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.) 
Punjab Service of Engineers Class II P. W.D. (Buildings & Road-
ways Branch) Rules, 1965, Rules JO and 12-Appointment of officer by 
transfer-Assignment of seniority in public interest-Whether can be c 
assigned from the date of deputation which is prior to the date of 
abSlfrption. 
' 
/ 
Rule 10 of the Punjab Service of Engineers Class. II, P.W.D. 
(Buildings and Roadways Branch) Rules, 1965 provides that the 
government may, in special circumstances, with the approval of the 
D 
Commission, appoint an orpcer to the service by transfer. Sub-rule (5) 
of Rule 12 of the rules lays down that any person appointed to a post in 
the service as an Assistant Engineer by transfer can be assigned senio-
nty as of a date earlier than the date of absorption provided this is done 
in the interest of the public service and the seniority thus fixed shall in 
no case be more favourable than the seniority determined .after allowing 
him credit fOr the period of service rendered by him in previous 
E 
appointment as Assistant Engineer. 
_, 
The appellant, in Civil Appeal No. 3100 of 1988 (hereinafter 
;eferred to as respondent No. 4 as In the Tribunal) was an Assistant 
Engineer in the Punjab Public Works Department. He was deputed to 
F 
work with the Engineering Department of Chandigarh Administration 
on October 7, 1972 and was absorbed in the said Department on June 
17, 1978, at his request, However, he was granted seniority w .e.f. 
:r 
October 7, 1972 being the date of his joining as an Assistant Engineer on 
deputation in the Chandigarh Administration. 
G 
One K.S. Brar (hereinafter referred to as petitioner as in the 
Tribunal) joined the Chandigarh Administration as an Assistant 
Engineer on June 24, 1976. He challenged before the Tribunal the 
seniority of respondent No. 4 on the ground that the order of absorption 
of respondent No. 4 in the Chandigarh Administration and the order 
fixing his seniority were not in public interest or in the interest of the H 
it 
797 
A 
B 
c 
D 
798 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
service. The Tribunal allowed the petition holding that respondent 
No. 4 should be placed at the bottom of the gradation list of officers of 
his category and granted seniority from the date he was absorbed in the 
cadre. Hence these appeals by special leave by respondent No. 4 and the 
·Chandigarh Administration respectively. 
It was contended on behalf of respondent No. 4(a) that the ques-
tion of .regularity or validity of the order of absorption was irrelevant to 
the question of fixation of seniority; and (b) that the Chandigarh Ad-
ministration was entitled to assign a seniority to respondent No. 4 from 
a date prior to the date of his absorption as per the provisions of sub-
.rule (5) of Rule 12 of the Rules. It was, on the other hand, argued on 
behalf of the respondent (petitioner before the Tribunal) that, as the 
transfer of respondent No. 4 and his appointment as an Assistant 
Engineer in the Chandigarh Administration was at his own request, he 
should be placed at the bottom of the seniority list as on the date of 
absorption. 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD: (1) For the question of determining seniority, what one 
has to see is not Rule 10 but Rule 12(5) of the said'Rules. The Tribunal 
completely failed to notice Rule 12(5) and, probably, it was because of 
this that it fell into the error of coming to the conclusion that it did. This 
,E 
appears clear from the fact that there is no reference to Rule 12(5) at all 
in the judgment of the Tribunal. [803C-D, 804B-C] 
2(i) The Notification dated 14.1.1980 relating to the fixation of 
seniority of Respondent No. 4· expressly sets out that the order assigning 
a higher seniority to him has been passed by the Chandigarh Adminis-
F 
!ration taking into account all the circumstances of the case and keeping 
in view public interest and after considering the representations made 
in connection with the tentative seniority list which was circulated 
earlier. By the said order seniority is assigned to Respondent No. 4 with 
effect from 7.10.1972 which is clearly within the limits laid down in the 
proviso to Rule 12(5) of the said Rules. [803D-E, F-G] 
G 
2(ii) Respondent No. 4 was first appointed as an Assistant 
Engineer through 

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