R.R.S. CHOUHAN AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1158 · Decided: 28-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
A 
R.R.S. CHOUHAN AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
\ MARCH 28, 1995 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
1 
Indian Forest Service (Seniority) Rules-Rule 3-Post of Officer on 
~ 
c Special Duty (O.S.D.)-Creation of Carrying Lower Pay Scale and falling in 
the State Forest Service-Whether Senior post for the purpose of detennina-
tion of seniority in the Indian Forest Service-Held: No.-l'eriod of con-
tinuous officiation on the post O.S.D. till the appointment to the service-Not 
to be taken into account for purposes of seniority and for assignment of year 
·: D of allotment. 
By Order dated January 23, 1974 the Government of Madhya 
Pradesh abolished 27 posts in the senior pay scale of Rs. 700-1250 in the 
Cadre of the Service and in their place equal number of Temporary posts 
of Officer On Special Duty in the pay scale of Rs. 680-1000-EB-1150 were 
E created in the State Forest Service. It was stated in the order that this 
arrangement would remain effective for a period of one year or till the time 
of preparation of select list according to Rules of Indian Forest Service 
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, which ever is earlier. The said 
order was extended twice each time for a period of one year. 
:F 
The appellants were promoted on the post of Officer on Special Duty 
in .the pay scale of Rs. 680-1150. While they were officiating as such, the 
-~ ... 
names of appellants were included in the select list for the year 1978 
prepared by the Selection Committee under the Indian Forest Service 
-1 
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1966. Out of_ the select list 38 
_ __G persons were appointed to the seryice for the year 1978. Since the appel-
lants were lower down in merit they could not be appointed. The names of 
the appellants were not contained in the select list for the years 1979, 1981 
& 1984. The names of the appellants were found in the select list of 1985 
\ 
and they were appointed to the service by order dated Sept. 1985 and were 
allotted the Madhya Pradesh Cadre and were assigned 1981 as the ?r of 
H allotment for the purpose of seniority in the Service. The appellants moved 
1158 
I 
/ 
R.R.S. CHOUHAN v. U.0.L 
1159 
an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming that A 
they should have been given 1971 as the year of allotment for the purpose 
of senioritY, on the ground that they were continuously holding the senior 
post of Deputy Conservator of Forests, a Cadre post in the services 
uninterruptedly from 1977 till the date of their appointment to the service. 
The said petition was dismissed. Hence these appeals. 
B 
~ismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1. Under Rule 3(2)(C) of the Seniority Rules a promoted 
t 
officer can avail the benefit of the period of continuous officiation in a 
I 
senior post for the purpose of seniority only if the following two require· c 
ments are fulfilled at the time of his appointment to the Service: 
(i) he had been continuously officiating in a senior posi; and 
(ii) his name was in the select list during, the period of such con· 
tinuous offication. [1164-F-G] 
D 
2.1. The post of O.S.D. was not a 'Senior post' as defined in Rule 
2(g) of the Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules 1968, 
since it was not a post included and specified under item 1 of the Cadre 
of the State of Madhya Pradesh in the Schedule to the Indian Forest 
Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, i966. The said post was E 
also not a post included in the number of posts specified in items 2 and 5 
of the said cadre. Moreover, from the order dated January 23, 1974 
whereby the post of O.S.D. were created it would appear that the said 
posts were created in the State Forest Service in the place of posts in the 
senior pay scale of Rs. 700-1250 of the Service which were kept in abeyance F 
and the post of O.S.D. had a lower pay scale of Rs. 600-1150. This shows 
>----
that the post of O.S.D. was not a post equivalent to a cadre post in the 
> 
senior pay scale of the Service but was a post in the State Forest Service 
r 
having a lower pay scale than the post in the senior pay scale in the Service. 
[1165-F-G] 
2.2. Both the Union Government as well as· the State Government G 
have taken the stand that the appointment of the appellants as O.S.D. was 
on a post in the State Forest Service and that it was not a cadre post in 
the Service and, therefore, none of the requirements of the Indian Forest 
-Serv

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