RAN SINGH MALIK versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 952 · Decided: 13-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAN SINGH MALIK 
V. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 13, 2002 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Haryana Veterinary Service Class I Rules, 1930 and Haryana Veterinary 
(Group A) Service Rules, 1995-Post of Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder)-
Cadre-Pay scale-Held, on facts and under the Rules, the post is an ex-
cadre post with lower pay scale than the cadre post. 
lnter-se Seniority-Cadre-Held, on/acts and under the Rules of 1930, 
appellant holding the ex-cadre post is junior to the respondents holding the 
cadre post--Under the Rules of 1995, inter-se seniority will not arise being 
different cadres. 
Appellant was appointed in 1983 as Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) 
on adhoc basis by respondent-State. In 1986, an advertisement was issued by 
State Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post on temporary 
basis. The appellant, who applied for the post, was appointed in the pay scale 
of Rs. 1200-1860. an appointment letter was issued to the appellant indicating 
that he would be governed by the Haryana Veterinary Service Class I Rules, 
1930. The pay scale was revised in 1987 to Rs. 1400-2100 with effect from 
1.2.1981. The revised pay scale was not given to the appellant. In 1988, the 
pay scale was further revised to Rs. 3000-4500. The appellant was given the 
revised pay scale of 1987 i.e. Rs. 1400-2100 only after the second revision. 
The appellant filed a Writ Petition before High Court for enhanced pay scale 
from the date of appointment. 
Meanwhile, in 1989, respondents 2 and 3 were appointed on different 
posts in the Class l service with higher pay scales. Further, the name of the 
appellant was not shown in gradation list published in 1992. The appellant 
filed another Writ Petition before the High Court for inclusion of his name 
in the gradation list and claiming seniority over respondents 2 and 3. In 1995, 
the respondent-State, in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso 
to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, brought into force the Haryana 
952 
• 
• 
( 
j 
R.S. MALIK v. STATE 
953 
Veterinary Service Group A Rules, 1995. 
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions of the appellant. The Single 
Judge relied upon a letter written by the Director, Animal Husbandry to the 
Secretary of the Government and held that the post of the appellant is an ex-
cadre post and hence was not entitled to the revised pay scale of 1987 from 
A 
. the date of appointment and further enhancement made in 1988; and that B 
respondents 2 and 3 were holding cadre posts in Class I service from the date 
of their appointment and hence were senior to the appellant with higher pay 
scale. Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the 
Division Bench of the High Court in limine. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the advertisement C 
issued by the Service Commission indicated that the post of Deputy Director 
(Feed and Fodder) is a post in Class I service; that the advertisement never 
indicated the pay scale for the post; that he is entitled for the increased pay 
scale made in 1987 from the date of appointment and to the further 
enhancement made in 1988; that the respondent-State failed to produce D 
documents to prove that the post held by him is an ex-cadre post; and that 
his name should be shown in gradation list as senior to respondents 2 and 3. 
The respondent-State contended that the post held by the appellant is 
an ex-cadre post with lower pay scale; that the appellant had accepted the 
post and the pay; and that the appellant cannot now claim higher pay scale E 
and seniority over respondents 2 and 3, who were appointed to the cadre posts 
in Class I service. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Haryana Veterinary Service Class l Rules, 1930 
nowhere defined the word 'cadre' or indicated as to which post would be borne F 
in the cadre. In the absence of the definition of the word 'cadre' in the Rules, 
a cadre would ordinarily mean the strength of the service or a part of the 
service so determined by the Government constituting the post therein. Usually 
if the employer decides to create any ex-cadre post which may be necessary 
for any specialised scheme in keeping with the qualification of the personnel G 
·required to man that post, it is so indicated in the order of creation of the 
post. No relevant document creating the post of Deputy Director (Feed and 
Fodder) was produced by the respondent-State. The 

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