LexDELHI WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL COMMITTEE AND ORS. versus R.K. KASHYAP AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DELHI WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL
COMMITTEE AND ORS.
v.
R.K. KASHYAP AND ORS.
OCTOBER 28, 1988
iG.L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.]
A'
B
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act-Sections 93, 97, 98, 480/ Delhi
Municipal Corporation Service ilegulation 1959-Applicability-Delhi
Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking-Cadre of Executive
Engineer-Inter se seniority-Whether should reflect the corresponding
rankings in the feeding cadre of Assistant Engineers-Ad hoc Service C
rendered-When can be taken into considerauun for fixing seniority.
Articles 14 and 16-Seniority in cadre-Fixation of-Ad hoc
' service-When can be taken into consideration-Only when ad hoc
appointment made after considering the claims of senior in cadre.
D
Section 92 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act empowers the
appellant-Undertaking to make appointments to category 'A' posts
after consultation with the U.P.S.C. However, such consultation is not
required if the appointment isfor a period not exceeding one year. In
the absence of any regulation made by the Corporation with regard to E
the conditions of service of its employees, the Cent~al Government has
framed Delhi Municipal Corporation Service Regulation 1959, Regula-
tion 3 of which provides that these Regulations shall be applicable to all
Municipal Officers and other Municipal employees whose pay is
chargeable to the 'General Account' of the Municipal Fund.
F
The appellants as well as respondents, who were working as
Assistant Engineers, were appointed as EJ1ecutive Engineers on diffe-
rent dates for a period of one year or tilLt\le posts are tilled up in
consultation with the Commission. They all -worked continuously in
their respective posts till their services were regularised by the Commis-
sion with effect from 8 January, 1971. Their "eniorlty in the cadre of G
Executive Engineers was determined reflecting the respective rankings
in the feeding cadre, i.e., Assistant Engineer excluding the services
rendered on ad-hoc appointments. The learned Single Judge of the
Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, challenging the validity of
seniority list, filed by the aggrieved officia~. On appeal the Division
Bench of the High Court allowed the appeld:holding that the determina-
H
633
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
!iflll (If se11jority of officers is no\ goyerned by any statutory rule and
A
co11\in!l()US officiation in l!w p9st sh9uld be the basis,
l11 Hie appe3I by spec!lll leave before thjs Co!lrt it was arn!led by
the appellants that sjnce the Co111mission regularise!I t!te services 0f all
Execuiive Engineers wit(\ effect from a co111111on d?te, the intrr se
B
seniority in t(\e (Qwer ~<!<!re should be the Pf\lper b.asjs ill t(\e ltigher
caljre also, On ll!e con!rnrr the respo111!ent l'l\e~u.tive !'11gi11eHs con-
te11de!l !bat tile qmtil!YPI!~ officj3tio11 ill t1te f!Ost till regl!!aris~\io'!
should Ile the basis for determjning \tie seniority, Tf1e appliq1bility of
tl'!e Qell!i M1111iciP'!l {:orporntio11 Sffvice Regll!atioll 1959 to the
emP!l!nes llf !!le !-iildert!l1'i!!~ w;is also qµestio11e~:
Oismi~ing the appe~!. tpjs C0µrt,
llELD: (I) The Servife Reg11Iatio11 t959 iipplies only to ttiose whQ
were Plli!l ()ut pf !(;~llHa! Accomit' an<! it has Ill! appjiq1tiol1 t() !he
categijry !>f o,fficers (If !lie '!llPellant !,.inder\aking as the salary {!f !IJe
D
employees ill the !Jnderta(\ing. is paid 0ut oft.he account of the {)pder-
takil)g am! !lo! lil>m the '(;epel"l!I Account' of the Mul!icipal Fl!Dd. (639E-F]
(~) h1 !lie absenre of any rule or order the length !'f service sfwu.!<!
be the 1!11* !g !leter111i11e the seniority, [§46C]
E
(3) Tl'!e j11dg111eilts of {:ourts or observations made there0n are
pot to be read ~s statutes. They are 111ade in the setting of facts o!>tiiined
iµ ll PllftiCl!lar case, [6430]
Tl'!e pr!P.cip!e Qf countiqg servjce in favour of one shoµld not be
vio!3tiv~ !lf egy;i!ity !!f opportupity enshriqed in Articl~s 14 an<l 16 <!f
F the {:()qstitµ!iPll 1 If a4 ho( al!Pointment or te!DpQrary ~Pl!OilJt!llfnt js
IJl!!de withput cgnsi<lering !he. claims of s~niors in !he cadre, t1w sHvice
Fe11dered in s11~h !IPPoi11t!l1el1! slml!!d l10t be cgunted fQr seniority in the
c11!lre. T!te !e!lg!!t of service in ad hoc ;ippojntme!lt or stop-gap a!'ra!lge-
llle!!t Il1ade in tile exigeqcies Of service WltbO!!t cpnsjdefi!lg the cl~jllJS Of
alf !!te eligible a!!!l s!!i!;ible persoqs iP. t!Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.