LexDIRECTOR, C.B.I. & ANR. versus D.P. SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 571 ... DIRECTOR, C.B.I. & ANR. A v. D.P. SINGH (Civil Appeal No. 1485 of 2003) DECEMBER 16, 2009 B [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.) - ~ Service law - Seniority - Absorption of person after being on deputation - Fixation of seniority ~,Held: Officer who initially comes on deputation and is subsequently absorbed, c gets his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed from the date of absorption - Seniority of person already holding the same or equivalent grade in his parent department on regular basis is counted from the date he was holding same _y or equivalent grade in his parent department - On facts, D respondent-officer did not hold the rank of Dy. S.P. or equivalent post in his parent department on the date of his appointment as Dy.S.P. on ad-hoc basis in 1977 or at the time of his absorption in 1987, thus, his seniority in Dy.SP. is to be counted from the date of his absorption - Respondent E could have been absorbed only after receipt of recommendation from UPSC, thus, ~eriod during which ~\ respondent worked as Dy.SP. in CBI on officiating basis prior • to his absorption, cannot be counted - Office Memorandum dated May 29, 1986 - Sub-para (iv). F Respondent joined CBI as Sub-Inspector on deputation from State Police Service. Thereafter, he was appointed to the post of Inspector by CBI against deputation quota. He continued to be on deputation with CBI. On November 24, 1977 he was appointed to the post G , " of Dy.S.P. on officiating basis. He was absorbed as Dy.S.P. in CBI with effect from June 29, 1987. Until his absorption, he continued his lien in the parent department and was not promoted to the post of Dy.S.P. in the parent 571 H 572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A department. Respondent claimed his seniority from the ~- date of his initial appointment to the post of Dy.S.P. in CBl-i.e. from November 24, 1977. Tribunal dismissed the application. Review application was also dismissed. High Court allowed the writ petition. It directed that his B seniority to the post of Dy.S.P. should be counted from November 24, 1977 in place of June 29, 1987. Hence the present appeal. ~ . Allowing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1.1. The plain reading of sub-para (iv) of Office Memorandum dated May 29, 1986 would show that it provides that a deputationist whose services are absorbed later would get his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed normally from the date of his D absorption. However, in a case of person who has already ' been holding the same or equivalent grade in his parent department on regular basis, his seniority shall be counted from the date he was holding same or equivalent grade in his parent department. In the instant case, E respondent did not hold the rank of Dy.S.P. or the equivalent post in his parent department on the date of his appointment as Dy.S.P. on ad-hoc basis in 1977 or at the time of his absorption in 1987 and, therefore, his seniority in Dy.S.P. can only be counted from the date of .. F his absorption, i.e., June 29, 1987. If the construction put up by respondent to sub-para (iv) that since the respondent has been holding the post of Dy.S.P. in CBI since November 24, 1977, as per sub-para (iv), his seniority from the date he has been holding such post G must be counted, is accepted, it would render the first part of sub-para (iv), viz., "in the case of a person which is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later-where 1 • the relevant recruitment rules provide for transfer on deputation/transfer, his seniority in the grade in which he H is absorbed will n,·(mally be counted from the date of -) DIRECTOR, C.B.I. & ANR. v. D.P. SINGH 573 absorption," redundant and surplussage. Such A construction would be against the basic rule of construction that language of the statute should be read as it is and a construction which results in rejection of words as redundant must be avoided. [Para 15] [583-B- G] B 1.2. Respondent was appointed as Dy.S.P. on ----+ officiating basis by CBI in 1977 and he continued as such until his absorption in 1987, the said period should not be taken into account for considering his se.niority. C It is so because sub-para (iv) of Office Memorandum, plainly provides that date of absorption, ordinarily, would be the date from which seniority in the grade is to be reckoned. In the instant case, no departur
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.