DEVDUTTA AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 154 · Decided: 09-10-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
DEVDUTTA AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. ETC. 
OCTOBER 9, 1990 
[L.M. SHARMA AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.) 
Civil Services-M. P. State-Surplus personnel of Development 
Department-Absorption of as Sales Tax Inspectors-Inter se senio-
rity-Determination of-Open to authority to have a rationalisation of 
the situation-Ru/es formulated should be reasonable, just and equitable. 
A group of Block Level Extension Officers rendered surplus in 
theii- parent department were appointed as Sales Tax Inspectors, Class 
III (Executive) posts, in the respondent State between 13th February, 
1967 and 28th September, 1970. By an order dated 29th March, 1967, 
they were exempted· from the requirement of going through competitive 
D examination for the purpose of absorption. By memorandum dated 
22nd May, 1967 it was provided that seniority of surplus Class III 
ministerial employees of the development blocks on their absorption in 
other departments shall be determined with regard to the completed 
years of service counted for fixation of initial pay. By a subsequent 
memorandum dated 8th November, 1967 this facility was also extended 
E 
to employees absorbed in Class III executive posts. Another order 
issued on 19th July, 1973 on the subject maintained the provision with 
regard to seniority as contained in the memorandum dated 22nd May, 
1967. Subsequently these Sales Tax Inspectors were made permanent 
to that post retrospectively with effect from 31st March, 1967 by an 
F 
order dated 15th February, 1980. In the combined seniority list pre-
pared accordingly some of the directly recruited Sales Tax Inspectors 
were shown junior to the absorbed Sales Tax Inspectors. 
On cross petitions being filed by the existing Sales Tax Inspectors 
and the absorbed Sales Tax Inspectors assailing the seniority list the 
High Court quashed the order dated 15th February, 19s0 and seniority 
G 
was directed to be fixed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and 
general conditions of Service Rules. 
In triese appeals by special leave, it was contended for the existing 
Inspectors that the absorbed Inspectors could not be confirmed on 15th 
February, 1980 retrospectively with effect from a presumed date, 
H 
namely, 31st March, 1967; that the determination of seniority taking 
154 
I 
DEVDUITA v. STATE OF M.P. 
155 
confirmation as the basis was erroneous as they were entitled to have 
the entire period between their actual appointment and confirmation 
taken into consideration, and that the appointment of the absorbed 
Inspectors was illegal having been made not in confonnity with the 
relevant rules and without the recommendations of the Public Service 
Commission. For the absorbed Inspectors it was contended that since 
they had been working in another department of the State Government 
from various dates between 13th November, 1956 and the actual .date 
of their absorption they were entitled to have the entire period .of their 
service in that department taken into consideration and the iixation of 
their seniority on the basis of their having been conf"mned from the 
presumed date -0f 31st March, 1967 was erroneous, that none of the 
rules relied on by the existing Inspectors was applicable to them, and 
that it was the executive instructions issued in this behalf particularly 
dated 29th March, 1967, 22nd May, 1967, 8th November, 1967 which 
applied to their absorption. 
· 
Allowing the appeals, the Court, 
HELD: 1. The order of the State Government dated 15th 
February, 1980 giving retrospective confirmation to the absorbed Sales 
tax Inspectors from a presumed date and determination of inter se 
seniority on the basis of the dates of confirmation was valid. [159H] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
2.1 Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to· rule, 
E 
his seniority shall be counted from the date of his appointment and not 
according to the date of his confirmation. His transfer to the same or an 
equivalent post in another Government department cannot wipe out his 
pre-existing length of service in the parent department. [1620; 164G] 
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State 
F 
of Maharashtra & Ors., [1990] 2 SCC 715; Wing Commander J. Kumar 
v. Union of India & Ors., [1982] 3 SCR 453 and K. Madhavan & Anr. 
v. Union of India & Ors. etc., [1988] 1SCR42, referred to. 
2 .2 It is, however, perfectly within the power of the Government 
to have a rationalisation of the entire situation and determine with 
G 
obj

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