PRAFULLA KUMAR DAS AND ORS versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 301 · Decided: 07-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

PRAFULLA KUMAR DAS AND ORS 
v. 
ST A TE OF ORI SSA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 7, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI, B.N. AGRAWAL, S.B. SINHA 
AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
A 
B 
Seniority-Legal fiction of "year of allotment"-Applicability of- C 
Orissa Administrative Service-Merger of erstwhile junior branch with the 
senior branch in December, 1973-Formation of a single integrated 
cadre-Long established policy of the State as to appointment and 
allocation of seniority was to follow the principle of "year of allotment"-
Held valid by this Court in the case of Nityananda Kar-Based on such 
principle, whether mergerists in the integrated service from the erstwhile D 
junior branch could be placed in gradation list below direct recruits 
subsequently appointed in 1975 against vacancies identified for the year 
1973-Held, Yes-Legal fiction of "year of allotment" operated in respect 
of the I 97 5 appointees as if they had been appointed in the year when the 
vacancies were initially identified-They would be deemed to have been E 
appointed in 1973, prior to the merger-Mergerists were a class unto 
themselves, but not promotees, hence could be denied seniority over direct 
recruits whose year of allotment was 1973-Besides, the mergerists were 
scarcely affected by the miniscule number of direct recruits placed above 
them-Mere hardship to the mergerists cannot be a ground for striking F 
down the Amendment.Act of 1992 which sought to implement directions 
given in the case of Nityanand Kar-Orissa Administrative Service, 
Class-JI (Recruitment) Rules, 19)9--Rules 10 & 11-0rissaAdministrative 
Service Class II (Appointment by Promotion, Transfer and Selection) 
Regulations, 1959-Rule 4(2)-0rissa Administrative Service, Class-JI G 
(Appointment of Officers Validation) Amendment Act, 1992-Section 2. 
Seniority-Right of-Held : Is not fundamental right but merely a 
civil right-An ostensible right to seniority may be altered or denied by 
the State even with retrospective effect-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 309. 
H 
301 
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14-Legislation-Striking down 
of-Scope-Held : Mere hardship cannot be a ground for striking down 
a valid legislation unless it is held to be discriminat01y or unreasonable. 
The petitioners in the writ petition as well as the appellants in civil 
appeal were members of the Orissa Subordinate Service Class Ill 
B (OSAS), which was designated as Orissa Administrative Service (OAS) 
(Junior Branch) following its proposed and.partfal merger, on January 
7, 1972, with the Orissa Administrative Service II, which,'in turn, came 
to be known as Orissa Administrative Service (OAS) (Senior Branch). 
The complete and final merger of these branches by virtue of the 
C governmental resolution in this behalf, dated December 21, 1973, 
resulted in the creation of a single integrated Orissa Administrative 
Service Class II. The Deputy Collectors, as the members of the 
erstwhile Senior Branch were known, and the·Sub-Deputy Collectors 
of the Junior Branch, were consequently conferred inter se seniority 
D in the integrated service such that the first name of the defunct Junior 
Branch would be placed immediately below the last name of the Senior 
Branch. 
The established practice of the State of Orissa as to the 
appointment, and allocation of seniority, of its officers ·bas been to 
E follow the principle of "year of allotment," whereby the date of 
appointment ·of an officer 'for the purposes of promotion and 
consequential seniority is regarded not as the date of actual appointment, 
but as the year in respect of which the vacancy was originally proposed 
to be filled. In consonance with the stated practice, the respondent 
F officials, in the present instance, were given 1973 as their year of 
allotment, although in actual point of time they took up service on 
varying dates in the year 1915. The petitioners and appellants being 
mergerists who were born in the integrated service on the date of 
merger, that is December 21, 1973, were thereby denied seniority with 
G respect to the direct recruits, by virtue of the principle of year of 
allotment. 
The concept of year of allotment, in the particular context of the 
1973 Merger was·upheld by·the High Court in the case of Ananta 
Kumar Bose*, which decision was subsequently approved by a three-
H Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Nityananda Kar**. 
•;, 
P

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