S. SUMNYAN & ORS. versus LIMI NIRI & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 4 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 20-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 4 S.C.R. 829 
S. SUMNYAN & ORS. 
A 
V. 
LIMI NIRI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3512 of 2010) 
APRIL 20, 2010 
B 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Arunachal Pradesh Administration [Public Works c 
Department] Group-8 Post Recruitment Rules, 1983 -
Seniority benefit - Appointment of appellants as Assistant 
Engineers on temporary and ad-hoc basis by State 
Government under the Rules - Subsequently constitution of 
State Public Service Commission - Completion of two years 0 
probation period by appellants - Recommendation ofthe 
Commission - Regularisation of services of appellants from 
the date of initial appointment - Meanwhile, respondent no. 
1 appointed as Assistant Engineer on regular basis and on 
probation for period of two years - Publication of several E 
provisional seniority lists showing appellants as senior to 
respondent no. 1 - No objection raised - Subsequently 
appellants also promoted to higher posts - Publication of final 
seniority list - Challenge to, by respondent no. 1 - Direction 
by Single Judge of High Court to the Government of 
Arunachal Pradesh to recast the seniority list and that ad-hoc 
F 
period of service rendered by appellants not to be counted 
towards seniority - Upheld by Division Bench - On appeal 
held: There is no justification for denial of the benefit of 
seniority to appellants from the date of their initial 
appointment - Respondent no. 1 neither challenged the initial G 
appointment order of appellants as Assistant Engineers nor 
the subsequent order regularising their services from the date 
of their initial appointment - Also no objection raised to the 
seniority lists, thus, the said challenge is belated - Order of 
829 
H 
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 
A regularization became final and binding on all persons 
concerned -Respondent no. 1 was inducted into Government 
service by a separate mode of recruitment than that of 
appellants, therefore, their cases cannot be equated - Thus, 
order of High Courl not called for and is set aside - Delay/ 
B /aches. 
During the years 1986 and 1988, the Government of 
Arunachal Pradesh appointed the appellants on 
temporary and ad-hoc basis as Assistant Engineers [Civil] 
in the Public Works Department on the condition that 
C they would be regularized according to the Rules on the 
recommendation of a Selection Board constituted by the 
Government. As per the Rules, the appellant had to 
undergo a probation period of two years. Thereafter, 
Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was 
D constituted. The appellants completed their probation 
period and the State Public Service Commission 
considered their cases. They were regularised as 
Assistant Engineer [Civil] against direct recruitment 
quota, with effect from the date of their initial 
E appointment. Meanwhile, in the year, 1988, the 
respondent no. 1 was appointed on ad-hoc basis to the 
post of the Assistant Engineer. Thereafter, the 
respondent no. 1 was appointed as Assistant Engineer 
on regular basis and put on probation for a period of two 
F years on 02.05.1989. In the year 1990, the provisional 
seniority list of Assistant Engineers was issued and the 
appellants were shown as seniors to the respondent no. 
1. Some of the appellants were promoted to the post of 
the Executive Engineers and the Superintending 
G Engineer on ad-hoc basis and thereafter, were 
regularized, by giving them the benefit of service from 
the actual date of their joining the service. A final seniority 
list of the Superintending Engineers and the Executive 
Engineers as on 29.08.2001 was published. In the year 
H 
S. SUMNYAN & ORS. v. LIMI NIRI & ORS. 
831 
2001, the respondent no. 1 challenged the seniority list A 
by filing a writ petition. The Single Judge of High Court 
directed the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to recast 
the seniority list of the Civil Engineers by accepting the 
date of appointment of the respondent no.1 as on 
02.05.1989 and those of the appellants from the 
B 
respective dates of their regularization and that the ad-
hoc period of service rendered by them as Assistant 
Engineers would not be counted towards the seniority in 
the rank of Assistant Engineer. The Division Bench of 
High Col!rt upheld the order. Hence the appeal. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The appellants were appointed as 
Assistant Engineers on purely temporary and ad-hoc 
basis as per the relevant terms and conditions. Few of D 
the l

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