MALOOK SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 1080 · Decided: 28-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1080
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
MALOOK SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos 6026-6028 of 2021)
  SEPTEMBER 28, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD,
VIKRAM NATH AND B V NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Determination of seniority – Ad hoc service, if
counted for – Doctrine of res judicata vis-à-vis law of precedent – In
view of an earlier writ petition filed by appellants-ad hoc employees
against regularly recruited employees appointed after them,
seniority list was redrawn and the appellants were granted seniority
w.e.f. dates of their initial appointment by including the period of
ad hoc service – Fixation of seniority challenged by private
respondents who were not party to the earlier writ petition but were
adversely affected – Allowed by Single Judge – Appeals, dismissed
by Division Bench – Held: In the earlier writ petition, reliance placed
by Single Judge on Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’
Association v. State of Maharashtra reported as [1990] 2 SCR 900 to
hold that ad hoc service should be counted for conferring the benefit
of seniority is misplaced – In the present case, initial appointment
was supposed to be a stop gap arrangement besides being not in
accordance with the rules, thus the ad hoc service cannot be counted
for the purpose of seniority, as held in Direct Recruit case – Further,
a binding decision of the court which has attained finality would
bind only the parties to the proceedings inter-se – Seniority list
prepared pursuant to the earlier judgment would not bind those
who were not parties to the earlier proceedings and were adversely
affected – In view of the express terms of the regularization policy
in the present case, seniority would date with effect from the date of
regularization – However, during the pendency of the present
proceedings, the appellants, the private respondents as well as the
appellants in companion appeals received promotions from time to
time and have retired from service, thus, the pensionary benefits
being disbursed to them not to be disturbed and no recoveries made
– Constitution of India – Art.142 – Punjab Civil Secretariat (State
Service Class III) Rules 1976.
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 1080
1080
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1081
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As a matter of first principle, the view which
has been adopted in the impugned judgment of the Division Bench
of the High Court cannot be faulted. The policy for regularization
issued on 3 May 1977 is clear in regard to the date of
regularization, the principle for reckoning seniority and the basis
on which seniority should be reckoned inter se between persons
belonging to the group of ad hoc employees who were regularized.
The policy clearly specifies that regularization would be granted
to persons who had fulfilled a minimum of one year service as on
31 March 1977. As regards seniority, clause 5(a) specifies that
the seniority, upon regularization would date back to 1 April 1977
vis a vis candidates appointed on a regular basis after selection
through the prescribed procedure. As between ad hoc employees
who were regularized, inter se seniority would however be based
on the length of service so that a person possessing longer
service would rank senior to a junior in terms of the length of
service. The judgment of the Single Judge in Malook Singh’s
case-the earlier writ petition (Malook Singh vs. State of Punjab
CWP No 2780/1980) essentially dealt with two facets. The first
was that persons who were recruited after following the regular
procedure for selection after the date of regularization of ad hoc
employees on 1 April 1977 could not rank senior to those who
had been regularized prior to their date of appointment. The
second aspect on which the Single Judge held in favour of the
petitioners in CWP No 2780 of 1980 was that once regularization
takes place, the length of ad hoc service must count for the
determination of seniority. The second facet of the judgment of
the Single Judge was specifically kept open in the Letters Patent
Appeal by the Division Bench. Therefore, clearly the judgment
in Malook Singh’s case did not conclude the issue of whether ad
hoc service would count for the purpose of determining seniority.
The Special Leave Petition (SLP (C) No 7513 of 1993) against
the judgment of the Division Bench was dismissed by this Court
on 16 July 1993. The judgement in Malook Singh was
subsequently overruled in Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab. [

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