D.P. SHARMA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 791 · Decided: 21-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

D.P .. SHARMA & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
FEBRUARY 21, 1989 
IK. JAGANNATHA SHETIY & KULDIP SINGH, JJ.) 
Armed Forces Headquarters Clerical Services Rules, 1968: 
A 
B 
Seniority of officials appointed in the common cadre of LDC prior to 
coming into force of Rules-Fixation of-Whether to be determined on 
basis of length of service as prescribed in various memoranda or on 
basis of confirmation-Whether 1968 Service Rules have retrospective 
C 
effect. 
The Arined Forces Headquarters Clerical Service Rules, 1968 
were brought into force with effect from March, 1968. The rules pro-
vided that seniority in the service shall be determined on the basis of 
date of confirmation. Prior to this, the seniority in the cadre of service D 
was required to be determined on the basis of length of service, as laid 
down by several official memoranda of the Government or that of the 
Defence Ministry. 
After the rules came into force, the seniority of the appellants who 
joined the Armed Forces Headquarters as L.D.Cs. between 1960 and E 
1964, on transfer/posting from the lower defence installations, in public 
interest, and some of whom were later promoted as U .D.Cs., was 
sought to be disturbed, on the basi~ of confirmation as prescribed under 
the rules. The appellants, therefore, moved the High Court contending 
that the length of service !ibould be the basis of inter se seniority. 
F 
A Single Judge of the High Court held that ordinarily the appel-
lants would h9ve been governed by the general principle of seniority 
based on the date of confirmation as laid down in the 1959 Memo-
randum of the Home Ministry, but since the Ministry of Defence had 
preferred to continue the principle of length of service which it had been 
following prior to 1959, even after the 1959 Memorandum, and which G 
had been incorporated in 1963 Memorandum and reiterated in all 
memoranda issued thereafter, the seniority of the appellants should be 
decided by length of service, i.e., their date of joining the Army Head-
quarters as L.D.Cs. 
On appeal by Union of India, the Division Bench held that the 
H 
791 
792 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1989) 1 S.C.R. 
seniority of the appellants must fall to be determined on the basis of -;-
A 
confirmation as prescribed by the rules, and not on the length of 
service. Aggrieved by this, the appellants filed appeals before this 
court. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD: The general rule is if seniority is to be regulated in a 
particular manner in a given period, it shall be given effect to and shall 
not be varied to disadvantage retrospectively. [79SF-G) 
The Armed Forces Headquarters Clerical Service Rules, 1968 no 
doubt provide that all persons substantially appointed to a grade shall 
rank senior to those holding officiating appointments in the grade. But 
·-t 
the rules have no retrospective effect. It could not impair the existing 
)o'. 
rights of officials who were appointed long prior to the Rules came into 
force. [79SA-BI 
The various office memoranda clearly laid down that length of 
service should be the guiding principle of arranging inter se seniority of 
officials. [79SB) 
The appellants being governed by those memoranda had the right )\ 
to have their seniority determined accordingly before the Rules came 
into force. That being their right, the rules cannot take it away to 
their prejudice: The Division Bench, was, therefore, clearly in error 
in directing that the seniority shall follow their respective confirma-
tions. [795B-CJ 
Union of India v. M. Ravi Varma & Anr., [19721 2 SCR 992 at '"i_ -
1002,relied on. 
-7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4133-
4134 of 1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.1982 of the Delhi High 
G 
Court in LP.A. No. 125 and 115 of 1981. 
Ashok Mahajan, G.D. Gupta and R. Venkataramani for the t 
Appellants. 
Anil Dev Singh. Mrs. Indra Sawhney, Mrs. Sushma Suri and 
H 
C. V .S. Rao for the Respondents. 
> 
I .. 
-:-
• 
D.P. SHARMA v.U.0.1. [SHETIY, J.] 
:793 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. These two appeals by special 
leave raise the question of determination of seniority of the appellants 
in the cadre of Lower Division Clerks. The appeals are preferred 
against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated March 5, 1982 
in LPA No. 125of1981. 
The appellants were originally recruited as Civilian School 
Masters or L.D.Cs., Leading Hand (Technical), etc. either in the 
Lower Defence Installat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.