LexSECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTT. & R.E.S. versus NARENDRA KUMAR TRI PATH I
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 742 A SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTT. & R.E.S. B v. NARENDRA KUMAR TRI PATH I (Civil Appeal No. 3348 of 2015) APRIL 7, 2015 [V. GO PALA GOWDA AND AD AR SH KUMAR GOEL, JJ. ] Service law: Seniority - Ad hoc appointment - c Regularization of - Claim for seniority from the date of appointment - Held: In the instant case, the appointment was made after due selection process and was neither against the rules nor as stop gap arrangement - Service was subsequently regularised - Employee is entitled to count ad D hoc service for his senioritY1- Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1989 - r. 10 - Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public E Service Commission) Rules, 1979- rr.4 and 7. Dismissing the State's app~al and allowing the respondent-writ petitioner's appeal, the Court F HELD: 1. The writ petitioner was first appointed as Work Engineer (Work Charge) on 18th January, 1983. Later, vide Office Memo dated 12th June, 1985 issued by the State Government on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee, he was appointed on G temporary post of Assistant Engineer in regular scale on ad hoc basis. The said appointment continued and was followed by "Notification/Regularization" dated 141h December, 1989 as per the 1979 Rules as amended by 1989 Rules. The Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc H 742 SECY. MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTI. v. NARENDRA 743 KUMAR TRI PATH I Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public A Service Commission) Rules, 1979 provided for regularization of ad hoc appointment of persons possessing requisite qualifications for regular appointment on completion of three years continuous service. [Paras 3, 4] [745-G-H; 746-A-E] B 2. No doubt, ad hoc service, when appointment was against rules and purely as stop gap arrangement, cannot be counted for the purposes of seniority but the present is not the case where the ad hoc service is purely C by way of stop gap arrangement or against the rules. The scheme of the working of the Rules in the Departmentshows thatrightfrom 1979, the Department has been making direct recruitment after due selection and by applying the 1979 Rules which rules have been D extended from time to time to subsequent recruitments, services were regularized. When the rules provide that such ad hoc appointments have to be regularized and seniority counted from the date of appointment, the writ E petitioner could not be deprived of the past service rendered by him from 12th June, 1985 till the date of regularization. It is not a case of appointments made without due selection or without vacancy or without qualification or in violation of rules. It is not a case where F service rendered is either fortuitous or against rules or by way of stop gap arrangement. The writ petitioner is entitled to count service from 12th June, 1985. Moreover, the department has allowed the benefit of past service to other similarly placed incumbents [Paras 13, 18] [751- G B; 757-C-G] Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra 1990 (2) SCC 715: 1990 (2) SCR 900 - relied on. H 744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union oflndia 1992 Su pp.( 1) SCC 272: 1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 573 - held inapplicable. State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Aghore Nath Dey & Ors. B 1993 (3) SCC 371: 1993 (2) SCR 919; Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2000 (8) SCC 25: 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 573 - referred to. c D Case Law Reference 1990 (2) SCR 900 relied on. Para 7 1993 (2) SCR 919 referred to. Para 9 1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 573 held inapplicable. Para 13 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 573 referred to. Para 16 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3348 of 2015 etc. E From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2003 of the F High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9940 of 2001. WITH C. A. No. 3349 of 2015 Ratnakar Das, M. R. Shamshad, Kabir Dixit, Aditya Samaddar, Garvesh Kabra, Pooja Kabra, Pradeep Misra, Chandra Shekhar, Udit Arora, Shashwat Sharma, Sandhya G Gupta, S. K. Verma, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, G. V. Rao, Siddharth Krishna Dwivedi, Vi nay Garg, Anil Kumar Sang al, Respondent- In-Person, Applicant-In-Person, Pradeep Misra, for the appearing parties. H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.