LexGHANSHYAM SHARMA AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ,8 [2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 762 GHANSHYAM SHARMA AND ORS. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No.4935 of 2006) DECEMBER 1, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Service Law - Seniority - Rajasthan Secretariat t C Ministerial Service Rules, 1970 - Rule 5, Proviso (5A) - Post. of stenographer - Claim of Lower Division Clerks(LDCs)/ Upper Division Clerks(UDCs), who were appointed as regular Stenographers (special promotees) on 25-4-1992, under proviso (5A) to Rule 5, for retrospective appointment from D 1978-1979 when they were initially appointed on ad hoc basis -- Consequential seniority dispute between the special promotees and directly recruited stenographers - Held: The ·High Court proceeded erroneously in assuming that the , retrospective appointment of LDCs/UDCs under proviso (5A) •, E was valid as if it was with effect from 1-4-1985 - Proviso (5A) did not contemplate or provide for or authorize retrospective appointment thereunder - Therefore, the decision of High Court insofar as it held that retrospective appointment could be made with effect from 1-4-1985, set aside - Appointment F of the special promotees as stenographers on 25-4-1992 was prospective and not with effect from any previous date. The instant appeals related to the claim of the Lower Division Clerks/Upper Division Clerks, who were appointed as regular Stenographers (special promotees) G on 25.4.1992, urder proviso (5A) to Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970, for retrospective appointment from 1978-1979 when they were initially appointed on ad hoc basis and the H 762 • GHANSHYAM SHARMA AND ORS. v. STATE OF 763 RAJASTHAN AND ORS. consequential seniority dispute between them and the A directly recruited stenographers. The questions which arose for consideration of the Court were: (i) Whether the special promotees who were appointed on 24.S.1992 under proviso (SA) to Rule S 8 ought to have been appointed with retrospective effect from the years 1978 and 1979 when they were appointed on ad hoc basis with special pay (as claimed by the promotees) or (ii)Whether the appointment of special promotees under proviso (SA), could be only prospective C from the date of their appointment (2S.4.1992) and not from any retrospective date, (as contended by the Direct Recruits) or (iii)Whether the orders making the LDCs/ UDCs appointed as stenographers on 2S.4.1992 . permanent in the post of stenographers with effect from · 1.4.198S was valid and did not call for interference. D Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD:1. The special promotees who were earlier working as LDCs and UDCs were assigned to work E against sanctioned vacant posts of stenographers on ad hoc basis in the year 1978-79 to 1981-82 pending regular recruitment by granting them a special pay of Rs.30/-. When they were so required to work as stenographers on ad hoc basis with special pay of Rs.30/- in the years F 1978 and 1979, proviso (SA) to Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970, was inapplicable to them, as at that time, proviso (SA) empowered the appointing authority to make substantive appointment to the post of stenographers against available vacancies, only from among those who were G holding the post of stenographers either in temporary or ad hoc capacity in the Rajasthan Secretariat on or before 31.7.1977. As none of the 22 special promotees was h,olding the post of ad hoc stenographers on 31.7.1977 . /and all, ~ere appointed as ad-hoc. stenographers only / H ' 764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A betwaen 17.3.1978 and S.S.1979, they could not be considered under proviso (SA) for appointment on regular basis. As they were required to work as stenographers purely on ad hoc basis from the years 1978 and 1979, pending regular recruitment and the regular recruitment B was in fact done by the Public Service Commission in pursuance of advertisement dated 29.2.1980, they were all reverted from the post of ad-hoc stenographers to their .., original positions as LDCs and UDCs in the years 1981- 82. These 22 special promotees who were working as ad- C hoc stenographers in 1980, applied for direct recruitment against the advertisement dated 29.2.1980, but none of them was successful in the examinations and consequently were not appointed against the direct recruitment vacancies filled by RPSC. Signif
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.