CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF AND ANR. versus G. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 360 · Decided: 08-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF AND ANR. 
v. 
G. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 8, 1995 
B 
[G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Seniority-Ad hoc appointment-Subsequent regularisation of-Con-
C tinuous officiation-Held, when initial appointment was made by way of ad 
hoc arrangement without following the procedure laid down by Rules benefit 
of continuous officiation not to Vt given for fixing seniority. 
The respondent was given ad hoc appointments to the post of 
Storekeeper and was subsequently regularised in that post. He was given 
D seniority only from the date on which he was regularised iu the post of 
Storekeeper. He made a representation to the Department claiming 
seniority by computing the period spent on ad hoc service as Storekeeper. 
The Department rejected the representation. The Respondent muved an 
application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which directed 
E that the Respondent should be given seniority from the date he started 
officiating in the post of Storekeeper and all consequential benefits shonld 
be given to him. Hence this appeal by the Department. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
p 
HELD : If an employee had been appointed on ad hoc or temporary 
basis exceeding the quota fixed for such appointment such employee wonld 
be entitled to get the credit of continnous officiation in fixing seniority 
provided such ad hoc or temporary appointment had been made by a 
regularly constituted body for holding the selection of the candidates to be 
appointed. In the instant case, the respondent was not selected by a 
G regularly constituted selection body for giving ad hoc appointments to the 
post of Storekeeper and on such selection he had continued in ad hoc 
service till regular appointment to such post was made. On the contrary, 
the case of the respondent is that while he had been holding ad hoc posts, 
he got selected on a regular basis to the said post of Storekeeper. In our 
H view, the principle enunciated in Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officers 
360 
CHIEFOFNAVALSTAFF v. G.G.PILLAI 
361 
Association is not applicable in the facts of this case because the initial A 
appointment of the respondent by way of ad hoc arrangement, was not 
made by following the procedure laid down by the Rules as referred to in 
Condition-B in the said decision. [363-B-E] 
Direct Recrnits Class II Enginee1ing Office1~ Association v. State of 
Maharashtra and Other, [1990] 2 SCC 715 and Union of India v.Ansusekhar 8 
Guin and Others, [1989] 1 SCC 283, distinguished. 
Union of India & Anr. v. S.K Sharma, [1992] 2 SCC 728, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11923 of 
1995. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.6.94 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in OA. NO. 1507/93. 
Dr. Anand Prakash, Mrs. Anil Katiyar and Ms. A. Subhashini for the 
Appeilants. 
D 
J.B. Dadachanji & Co., A.Z. Singh Pasrich for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
E 
F 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The short question which 
arises for consideration is whether or not the Central Administrative 
Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated June 2.1994 passed in 0.A. No. 
1507 of 1993 has correctly decided the question of seniority of the respon-
dent Sri G. Gopalkrishnan Pillai. It is an admitted case that the said Sri 
Pillai was given ad hoc appointment to the post of Storekeeper at Goa and 
while he had been continuing in such ad hoc appointments, he was 
regularised in the post of Storekeeper. The Naval Department has given 
appropriate fitment in the scale of a Storekeeper to Sri Pillai after giving 
credit for the officiation in the said post but so far as the seniority to the G 
cadre of Storekeeper is concerned, the seniority has been given only from 
the date when he was regularised in the post of Storekeeper. Sri Pillai felt 
aggrieved for not getting seniority by computing the period spent on ad 
hoc service as a Storekeeper. Claiming seniority by reckoning ad hoc 
service, he made a representation to the Naval Department which was 
rejected. 
H 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Thereafter, the Central Administrative Tribunal was moved by the 
respondent contending inter alia that as he had been officiating on ad hoc 
basis in the post of Storekeeper continuously till he was selected and 
regularly appointed to the post of Storekeeper, the entire period of con-
tinuous officiation

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