SH. I.K. SUKHIJA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 08-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

') 
SH. I.K. SUKHIJA AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JULY 8, 1997 
(S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Service Law-Seniority-Benefit of counting un-interrnpted ad-hoc ser-
vice for fzxing seniority-Appellants promoted against regular vacancies by 
DPC-Tribunal holding the appointments as stop gap a"angement-Held, 
findings of Tribunal e"oneous-Appellants, entitled to get their seniority from 
the dates they were initially promoted. 
A 
B 
c 
The Appellants who were originally employed as Junior Engineers in 
CPWD were transferred to P & T (Civil Wing) when it was formed. Though 
they were not paid any deputation allowance, they were absorbed in P & T D 
(Civil Wing) later. They were promoted on ad-hoc basis as Assistant 
Engineers between 1970 and 1977 and regularised w.e.f. 20.3.1978. At that 
time their inter se seniority was fixed in the grade of Assistant Engineers 
and seniority vis-a-vis direct recruits were prepared and finalised in 1987. 
The seniority list was challenged before the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Bombay and the Tribunal quashed the list in so far as it E 
determined seniority between direct recruits and promotions. 
Subsequently a fresh seniority list was prepared in which the date of 
regular appointments was shown as 20.3.1978. The Appellants challenged 
the same before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal and they sought a F 
direction for counting their uninterrupted and continuous ad-hoc service 
for determining the seniority. The Appellants contended that there was no 
break down of the quota rota rule; that they were appointed again~t regular 
vacancies by DPC and that their appointments were made in accordance 
with the prevailing rules. The Tribunal held that the appointments of G 
appellants were not only adhoc but also by way of stop gap arrangement 
and the case of the Appellants is governed by proposition 'A' laid down in 
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of 
Maharashtra, [1990] 2 SCC 715 and that they were not entitled to 
continuous officiation !lnd dismissed the O.A.s and upheld the seniority 
~ 
H 
627 
628 
SUPREME COURTREPO~TS [1997) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
In the appeal before this Court, the Appellants further submitted 
that the only reason why they were not regularly promoted and their 
promotions had been described as adhoc was the delay on the part of the 
departmelllt in finalising the draft recruitment rule made by them in 1969. 
The Respondents contended that the ad-hoc promotions were made as the 
B construction activity had increased; that they had not undergone the 
required process of selection; that thoufih they had undergone some 
process of selection at the DPC it was only for adhoc service and therefore 
their adhoc service cannot be counted for determining the seniority. 
c 
Allowing the Appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The appellants are entitled to get their seniority counted 
from the dates they were initially promoted as A. Es(E). [637-C] 
2. The Tribunal wrongly came to the conclusion that the appellants 
had not undergone the regular selection process and for that reason their 
D appointments were made on temporary and adhoc basis by way of stop-gap 
arrangement only. [634-C] 
3. The findings of the Tribunal that there is nothing on record to show 
if there existed regular vacancies when the promotions of the appellants 
E were made is clearly erroneous. The minutes of the DPC do not support the 
case of the respondents that appointments of the Appellants were made 
adhoc because they had not undergone regular process of selection. [635-D] 
4. The holding of the Tribunal that the conduct of the appellants in 
offering themselves for the test held for making regular promotions indi-
F 
cated that they had not earlier gone through the required process of selec-
tion and fol' that reason their appointments were ad-hoc is erroneous. 
[636-B] 
5. T~e promotions of the appellants as A.Es (E) were not contrary to 
any statutory recruitment rules. The appellants were eligible for promotions 
G and their cases were duly considered by the DPC. It is not possible to accept 
that the appointments of the appellants as A.Es though temporary and 
adhoc were byway of stop-gap arrangements only. [636-C-E] 
6. The Tribunal holding that the case of Appellants were governed 
by the corontary to the rule stated by this Court as proposition 'A' in Direct 
H Recruits' case is wrong. [636-F] 
-· ' .. 
' 
I.K SUKHUAv. U.O.I. [NANAVATI, J

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