KUNJ BEHARILAL AGARWAL versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1963] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 11-04-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
KUNJ BEHARILAL AGARWAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR, J. R. MunnoLKAR and T. L. 
VENKATARAMA AfYAR, JJ.) 
Defena Service-Temporary Clerks and Extra Temporary 
Clerks-Fixation of seniority-Constitutionality of order-Con-
stitution of India, Arts. 14, 16(1), 32. 
The petitioner was employed by the Ministry of Defence 
in 1942 as an Extra Temporary Establishment Clerk. 
As a 
i-esult of certain orders of the Government, there was an 
amalgamation of the services known as non-industrial 
staff in the Extra Temporary Establishment with those in 
another parallel service known as the Temporary Establish-
ment. The petitioner "contended in the petition that while 
Extra Temporary Clerks and the Tempora1y Clerks possessed 
the same qualifications, grade for grade, discharged the same 
duties and were governed by subtantially similar service con-
ditions, under the order of the Government dated April 201 
1955, a Temporary Clerk was given the right to have his 
seniority based on the length of his actual service, but the case 
of Extra Temporary Clerks like the petitioner, though 
in 
service since 1942, the entire service was not taken 
into 
account in fixing the seniority in the amalgamated roll and 
only half the period between 1942 and 1949 was taken into 
consideration. The petitioner contended that persons who 
entered service long after him as Temporary Clerks had been 
given places .of seniority above him. _The result was that they 
became entitled to be promoted to h1gh~r grades much earlier 
than the petitioner. That applied not only to the petitioner 
but also to the entire class of Extra Temporary Clerks. 
The petitioner contended that there was no valid or reason-
able basis for the discriminatory treatment of one set of 
employees as against another. The order was violative of the 
equal protection guaranteed by Art. 14 and the guarantee 
of equal op~rt?nity for empI?rment guaranteed by Art. 16(1) 
,} 1 of the Const1tut1on. The pet1t1oner challenged the constituti-
onal validity '!f the ord~r da~ed.April 20, 1955, and prayed 
for a dcclarahon that hlS semonty be computed without 
reference to the said order .• 
1 . 
1962 
April II. 
IPOJ 
Kuni B•huila1 
Ayat'wol 
•• 
Unim of !Mia 
2 
SUPREME COURT &EPOR'l'S C1963) 
Held, that the two services had no common origin, but 
were recruited on different bases on different rates of pay 
and runditions of service. 
Even among tbe members of the 
two parallel services, there had been great disparities in rates 
of pay and condition of•ervice. The two ScrvicC9 had been 
unified within each group by separate order• passed in 1945 
and 1946. As a rernlt of the changes brought about by these 
two orders in these two groups, a substantial amount 
of 
uniformity in the conditions of service of each group, comp-
ared with the other, had also been achieved. An attempt had 
been made to bring into a common roll the member• of the 
two Services by the communication dated Augu•t 14, 1946, 
but that communication was cancelled on February 15, 1947, 
Before August 19, 1949, the Temporary Clerks held their 
employment a. against sanctioned 
p<>919. 
The Extra Temp· 
orary Clerks were ad hoc employees recruited on a temporary 
basis and not against any sanctioned post, whether permanent 
or temporary. 
On the date of the amalgamation when the 
services of the Extra Temporary Clerks were regularised and 
they were brought to a. common establishment, the position 
wa. that when:aJ the Temporary Clerks along with the per· 
manent establishment were members of the ISP or IPE, the 
Extra Temporary Clerk's did not fall within that category, 
and were made part 0£ it only from and after August 1, 1949, 
ol'nder the order dated August 19, 1949. While the Tempor· 
ary Clerks could claim to have been in the same •ervice from 
even before August 1, 1949, the Extra Temporary Clerk• 
cou Id claim to belong to that service only from and after 
August 1, 1949. 
There was no express provision providin~ 
for a common basis of seniority based on length of service of 
the personnel falling under two groups and there WaJ no 
intention of providing a common rule 
for 
determining 
the •eniority. The petitioner could not claim that any rights 
regarding seniority which he posse.•ed on the date when the 
Constitution came into force, were, in any way, restricted or 
denied to him by the order of April 20, 1955. The said order 
was reall

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