M.RAMACHANDRAN versus GOVIND BALLABH AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 38 · Decided: 21-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. KURDUKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.RAMACHANDRAN 
v. 
GOVIND BALLABH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 
B 
(S.P. KURDUKAR AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Central Administrative Tribunal (Group Band C Miscellaneous Posts) 
C Recruitment Rules, 1989-Rule 5(1) and (2), proviso. 
Inter se seniority-Determination of--Deputationists-Permanent ab-
sorption on the same datr:--Benefit of service rendered on equivalent post in 
parent department-Entitlement of-Whether seniority to be determined from 
the date of deputation or from the date of appointment in equivalent post in 
D parent department? Held, employees entitled to benefit of service rendered on 
equivalent post in their parent department-Thus, seniority to be determined 
with reference to the date of appointment on equivalent post in parent 
department. 
Seniority-Determination of-Length of servicr:--Relevancy of-Held, 
E length of service in a particular class, category or grade parties holding at the 
relevant time, relevant for determining seniority and not the total length of 
service. 
Office Memorandum-Applicability of-Inter se senioritJDetermina-
F tion of-Rules providing method of detennination-Effect of-Held, Office 
Memorandum cannot be taken into account for determining seniority as the 
rules hold the field. 
Words and Phrases : 
G 
"Source''-Meaning and interpretation of in the context of Rule 5(2), 
proviso of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B and C Miscel-
laneous Posts) Recruitmelll Rules, 1989. 
Central Administrative Tribunal recruited employees from time to 
time on deputation. The services of the said employees on deputation were 
H permanently absorbed by the Tribunal on the same day in terms of S. 
38 
-
M. RAMACHANDRAN v. GO VIND BALLABH 
39 
5(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B and C Miscel-
A 
.laneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989. A dispute arose whether the 
seniority of employees should be counted from the date oftheir deputation 
or l'rom the date of their appointment to equivalent posts in parent 
department. The Tribunal relying upon the Office Memorandum dated 
3.7.1986 held that the seniority of employees should be determined from 
the date of their deputation. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. All the employees recruited in the service under Rule 
B 
5(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B and C Miscel-
C 
Ianeous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989, are entitled to the benefit of the 
service on equivalent post in their parent department for the purpose of 
determining their seniority. [51-8] 
R.S. Bakshi v. J.M. Menon, [1982] 1 SCC 379; Wing Commander!. 
Kumar v. Union of India, [1982] 3 SCR 453; K. Madhavan & Anr. v. Union D 
oflndia & Ors., [1987] 4 SCC 566; K. Anjaiah & Ors. v. K. Chandraiah & 
Ors., [1998] 3 SCC 218.andM. Hara Bhupal v. Union of India &_ors., [1997] 
3 sec 561; relied on. 
1.2. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 is the relevant rule relating to the E 
determination of the seniority of the officers recruited to the service under 
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5. The seniority of such recruited officers is required 
to be determined with reference to the date of their regular appointment 
to the posts. The proviso to Sub-rule (2) shall cover the case of such 
officers whose seniority cannot be determined under Sub-rule (2) as in the 
present case of the persons appointed/recruited on the same date. In such 
a case the seniority of the officers recruited from the same source has to 
F 
be determined by giving them the benefit of the equivalent post held by 
them in their parent department .. Sub-rule (2) and its proviso, is based 
upon the general principle of service jurisprudence. The Office Memoran-
dum dated 3. 7 .1986 cannot be taken into account for determining the inter G 
se seniority of the persons recruited to the service on the same date as the 
rules hold the field. [50-B; C; DJ 
1.3. Seniority is a relevant term having reference to the 
class, 
category and the grade to which the reference is made. Length of service H 
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A is a recognised method of determining the seniority. Such length of service 
shall have reference to the class, category or grade which the parties were. 
holding at the relevant time. It, therefore, follows that total length, of 
service is not relevant for determining the seniority but length of service 
to a particular class, category or grade is relevant consideration for the 
B purposes of counting the period

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