K. TRIMURTHULU AND ORS. versus M.V.N. MURTHY AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 807 · Decided: 11-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

K. TRIMURTHULU AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
M.V.N. MURTHY AND ORS. 
FEBURARY 11, 1998 
[ S.SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law : Seniority : Ministry of Defence Circulars dt. 19.11.831 
28.8.85-Fixation of seniority without counting the period of casual service-
The appellants cannot be treated senior to the respondents on the basis of 
the casual service rendered prior to regularisation-The subsequent circular C 
dated 26.6.95-Did not modiJY or cancel the earlier·circulars. 
The appellants, who joined initially as Temporary casual Skilled Fitters 
and were subsequently regularis~d, were promoted as Highly Skilled Fitters 
Grade-11 by the Naval Dockyard Notifications dt 22.9.84 and 20.2.85. The D 
respondents challenged the promotions in the Central Administrative Tribunal, 
contending that though they joined as skilled Fitters earlier to the appellants, . 
the Naval Dockyard was not justified in treating the appellants, as senior to 
them by including the period of their casual service as regular service for 
the purpose of seniority. The Tribunal quashed the promotions on the basis 
of two circulars issued by the Ministry of Defence which provided that the E 
seniority of casual employees would be reckoned from the date of their 
regular appointment and also directed the authority of consider the promotion 
of the respondents. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Tribunal did not commit any error in reckoning the F 
seniority of the appellants from the date of their regular appointment and had 
acted strictly in accordance with the Circular Letters issued by the Ministry 
of Defence dt 19.11.83 and 28.8.85. Since it was the consistent policy of the 
Ministry of Defence that benefit of seniority would be allowed to the casual 
employees only with effect from the date on which.they were appointed on 
regular basis and the period of casual service would not be counted towards G 
seniority, the Tribunal was fully justified in recording the findings that the 
respondents would be senior to the appellants and that the Naval Dockyard 
was in error in treating the appellants as senior to the respondents. 
[809-H; 810-A] 
2.1. The Circulars dt. 19.11.83 and 28.8.85 on which reliance had H 
807 
808 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] l S.C.R. 
A been placed by the Tribunal, had not been modified or cancelled by the 
circular letter dt. 26.6.95, which only purported to im1>Iement the .iudgment 
~, ._ 
of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal. That being so, there is no infirmity 
in the .iudgment of the Tribunal. [810-E] 
2.2. H the appellants are entitled to any benefit other than the benefit 
B of seniority, on the basis of the Circular letter dt. 26.6.95 the Government 
may, if approached, consider the cases of the appellants for that limited 
purpose-. (810-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 880of1994. 
C 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.93 of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Hyderabed in 0.A. No. 665of1990. 
Mrs. K. .Sarda Devi for the Appellants. 
K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha G.Nair, C. Balasubramani, Y.S. Rao, Santi 
D Narayanan and R.N. Poddar for the1 Respondents. 
,.._ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: 
• 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. The appellants before us who challenge the 
judgment and order dated 2nd April, 1993 passed by the Central Administrative 
E Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench were directly recruited on their names being 
sponsored by the Employment Exchange. They were initially appointed as 
Temporilry Casual Skilled Fitters but were subsequently regularised on or 
after 15.583 on different dates. These appellants were also allowed to appear 
in the Departmental Qualifying Examination for promotion to the posts of 
Highly Skilled Fitter Grade-II which they passed and were, therefore, promoted, 
F some with effect from 6.7.84 vide Naval Dockyard Notification dated 22.9.84 
while others with effect from 1.2.85 vide Notification dated 20.2.85. 
2.- Both these Notifications were challenged by the Respondents (Nos. 
1-43) (for short. ~the respondents') before the Tribunal on several grounds 
including that the appellants could not be treated as senior to them particularly 
G as the respondents were admitted in tl1e Naval Dockyard Apprentices School, 
Vishal<liapatnam and after qualifying in various Trade Tests, were absorbed 
as Skilled Fitters on different dates between 12.11.79 and 27.1.83. It was 
contended that since the respondents had been absorbed as Skill

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