HARI OM VERMA versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 536 · Decided: 09-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HARi OM VERMA 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
AUGUST 9, 1996 
8 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Punjab Public Works Subordinate Services (Building a11d Road) 
C Branch) Rules, 1934: 
Rule 3(2)-Public Works Department-Assista11ts--Officials promoted 
from clerical side and Stenographers appointed to the .posHnter se 
seniority-Held, co11tinuous officiation in the post of assistant is the detem1in-
ing factor to fu: the inter se seniority-In case Assistant and senior stenog-
D ·rapher happe11 to officiate co11tinuously in the post from the same date 
necessarily the person having higher pay shall be treated to be senioi-lf the 
perso11s drawing the same pay happened to be appointed on the same date, 
the older person shall be treated as senio,-Since the respondents were 
appoill!ed in the year 1975 and appellant in 1977, the latter even though 
drawing higher pay as senior stenographer, cannot claim seniority over respon-
E 
F 
dents. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 10974-
10975 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.93 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 3938 and 9791 of 1993. 
Ashok Grover and Pramod Dayal for the Appellant. 
Manoj Swarup for the Respondent. 
G 
J.S. Maanipur and S.K. Sabbarawal for the Respondents Nos. 5 and 6. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
H 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
536 
H.O. VERMA v. STATE 
537 
The admitted position is that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, Gurnam A 
Singh and Parminder Singh, were appointed on September 19, 1975_ and 
September 25, 1975 respectively as Assistants on regular basis and ever 
since they have been continuously officiating as Assistants. The appellant 
while working as a Senior Stenographer had come to the administrative 
side as Assistant w.e.f. April 29, 1977 and joined the duty on the said date. 
In the matter of fixation of inter se seniority, since he has been drawing 
higher pay than the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 he claims that he is senior to 
them. The High Court in the impugned judgment dated 9.12.1993 in W.P. 
Nos. 3938 and 9791 of 1993 has upheld the claim of the respondents. Thus, 
these appeals. 
Shri Ashok Grover, learned counsel, for the appellant, contended 
that Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(2) of the Punjab Public Works Subordinate 
Services (Building and Roads) Branch Rules, 1934 are to be read together; 
B 
c 
if they are so read, a stenographer drawing higher scale of pay than the 
respondent should be treated as senior to them. Though p1ima fade the 
argument is plausible, on a careful reading of the said Rules his contention D 
does not appear to be tenable. Rule 3 reads as _under : 
"3.(1) In offices where the scale of pay of Stenographers is identical 
to that of Assistants, the Stenographers shall, before becoming 
eligible for promotion to a higher post on the clerical side, have E 
to 
(i) 
qualify in the departmental test prescribed for the post of 
Assistant, and 
(ii) work as Assistant for a period of two years on some existing F 
vacancy or by sharing the work of an Assistant" 
Provided that:-
(a) no Stenographer shall be allowed to take the test unless he 
has put in one year's service as Stenographer 
G 
(b) nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to require the 
Stenographers, who stand exempted from passing the test by 
virtue of the instructions already issued by the Government 
from time to time to pass the Assistant's test prescribed in 
this sub-rule. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
538 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
(c) No Stenographer will be put to work as an Assistant for the 
required period of two years, unless he has qualified in the 
test. 
Explanation 1. The period during which a Stenographer has, before 
the date of issue of these rules, performed the duties of an 
Assistant whether in addition to his own duties or otherwise will 
be taken into consideration in computing the period of his training 
as Assistant. 
Explanation 2. Where there is no available vacancy of the post of 
Assistant for imparting training to the Stenographer he shall be 
given at least one third of the work of some Assistant in addition 
to his own duties. The Assistant who is thus relieved of some of 
his work will in turn help the Stenographer in his routine duties. 
(2) The seniority of the Stenographers who successfully, complete 
the period of two years' training specified in sub-rule (1) vis-a-vis 
Assistants, shall be determin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.