MD. HABIBUL HAQUE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 717 · Decided: 17-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S.C. AGRAWAL

Judgment (excerpt)

MD. HABIBUL HAQUE 
\". 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 17, 199~ 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Sen"ice Law-Employer-1'1111ishment of reduction of pay scale for one 
year with cum11latfre effect-Promotion to higher grade subsequelll to imposi· 
tion of p1111ishment-Effect 011 senioril)-Employee's claim for seniority from 
tire date his junior was giren fitment in higher grade held justified. 
A 
B 
c 
The appellant was working as Preventive Officer Grade-II. By an 
order dated August 9, 1973, a penalty of reduction of pay scale for one year 
with cumulative effect was imposed on him. Subsequently, he was 
promoted as Preventive Officer Grade-I with effect from August 9, 1974. D 
His claim for seniority from the date he was eligible for fitment in Grade-I 
was allowed by a single judge or the High Court. However, no appeal, the 
Division Bench held that in view or the punishment imposed the appellant 
was not entitled to count his seniority from the date on which his juniors 
were promoted. 
E 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf or the appellant 
that vide proceedings or the Department in No. F. No. 2/18/68-Ad.IV(iv) 
dated June 6, 1968 the cadre or Preventive Inspectors was re-organised and 
directions were given to fit grade-II Officers in a phased manner as and 
when vacancies arise in Grade-I, the immediate junior or the appell~nt was p 
promoted with effect from February 29, 1968 and therefore, the appellant 
was entitled to the fitment or his seniority from that date. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Division 
Bench, the Court 
HELD : The High Court erred in considering that there was a 
punishment imposed upon the appellant. The punishment imposed, reduc-
G 
tion or scale or pay for one year with cumulative effect, does not have the 
effect of reducing his seniority . Nor was it a punishment of reduction of 
seniority or any placement which the appellant was entitled to hold lo the H 
717 
718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
order of seniorit)·. Therefore. the appellant is entitled to be adjusted in the 
cadre of Preventive Officer Grade-I from the date on which his immediate 
junior "'as ·considered and \\'as given fitment in Grade· I. 
[]719-G·H, 720-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Ci,·il Appeal No. 3997 of 
B 
1983. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.82 of the Calcutta High 
Court in F.M.T. No. 3515 of 1980. 
AD. Sikri for the Appellant. 
C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
" 
This appeal by special leave arise from the Judgment of the Dhision · 
D Bench of the High Court of Calcutta, dated December 23, 1982 in F.M.A.T. 
No. 3515/80. The appellant, while working as a Preventive Officer, Grade 
II, was dismissed from service by way of disciplinary measure. But, one 
appeal the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of 
dismissal and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to consider 
E 
the case on all aspects and pass appropriate order. Thereafter, the discipli· 
nary authority by Order dated August 9, 1973 considered the matter and 
imposed the penalty of reducing the scale of pay for one year with cumula-
tive effect. Thereafter, the appellant was promoted as Preventive Officer, 
Grade-I by proceedings dated August 9, 1974. Thereafter, he approached 
the High Court claiming seniority from the date to which he is eligible for 
F 
fitment as Preventive Officer, Grade I. The Learned Single Judge issued 
the writ and directed the authorities to grant him seniority according to the 
relevant rules. On appeal, the Division Bench, relying upon the procedure 
prescribed in the Circular F. No. 3/5/69-Ad.III-A, dated April 25, 1972 and 
placing reliance on paragraph 7, held that since the appellant was imposed 
G punishment of withholding scale of pay for one year, he was not eligible to 
count the seniority from the date on which his junior was promoted and 
that therefore, the fixation of seniority with effect from August 9, 1974 was 
in order. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
Ii ·is contended by Shri Ganguli, learned senior counsel for the 
H appellant that in the proceedings of the Department in F. No. 2/18/68-
I 
\ 
HABIBUL HAQUE v. U.0.l. 
719 
Ad.JV(i), dated June 6, 1968 pursuant to the recommendations made by A 
the Customs Study Team, the posts of Preventive Inspectors were abolished 
and equal number of posts, namely, 245 permanent and 15 temporary post

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