SH. NARAYAN YESHWANT GORE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 803 · Decided: 26-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SH. NARAYAN YESHWANT GORE 
A 
v. 
·~ 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 26, 1995 
[R.M. SAHA! AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Employee-Deputation-Continuation for a long period with concur- c 
rence of parent department-During deputation short term vacancies occurring 
in parent Department-Such vacancies filled by ad-hoc promotions-No 
proforma promotion to employee on deputation-On repatriation to parent 
department employee promoted on ad-hoc basis-Deemed substantive ap-
pointment of ad-hoc employees in view of a judicial pronounce-
ment-fl.epatriated employee treated as substantively appointed from date of D 
repatriation-Held benefit of judicial pronouncement should be extended to 
repatriated employee alscr-He should be deemed to have been confirmed 
from the date of his juniors were confirmed. 
The appellant working in the National Sample Survey Organisation 
E 
went on deputation on 6th March, 1961 as Tabulation Officer to the 
Census Department where he worked npto 21st October, 1969 and was 
promoted as Assistant Director of Census with the concurrence of the 
parent department and the UPSC. During deputation, he was considered 
for promotion In his parent department but as there were only short term 
vacancies no post was offered to him nor was he asked to come back to his F 
department. Consequently, he continued in the Census department till 31st 
December, 1974. During this period while his juniors were promoted on 
·ad-hoc basis in his parent department he was not given proforma promo· 
tion. However, on his repatriation, he was appointed as Assistant Director 
on 11.4.1975 on ad-hoc basis. In the meantime in view of the judgment of G 
this Court in Narendra Chadha v. Union of India, [1986] 1 SCR 211 the 
appellants' juniors who were appointed between 1969 and 1975 on ad-hoc 
basis were deemed to have been substantively appointed from the date of 
,+-
their ad-hoc appointments as a result of which they became senior to the 
appellant who was substantively appointed from the date of his repatria· 
tion. The appellant approached the Administrative-Tribunal claiming the H 
803 
804 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A same relief which was granted to the persons similarly situated on the 
basis of the decision in Narendra Chadha's case but the same was denied 
Hence thi• appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the Tribunal's order, this 
Court 
HELD : 1. The appellant was similarly situated along with those who 
were granted benefit by this Court. The benefit given in Narendra Chadha 
therefore, should be extended to him and he too should be deemed to have 
been working as Assistant Director on ad-hoc basis in the parent Depart-
C ment since October, 1969. He should be deemed to have been confirmed 
from the date his junior was confirmed. Since one of the juniors of the 
appellant was promoted as ad-hoc on 22nd May, 1986 after the decision 
was given by this Court calculating his seniority from 1969 and he was 
given promotion in 1986 as Deputy Director with effect from 17.3.1983, the 
appellant too shall be deemed to have been promoted as Deputy Director 
D from 17.3.1983. As the appellant has retired be shall be entitled to all the 
E 
F 
G 
benefits which flow from this order. (806-C-F] 
Narendra Chadha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., f1986] 1 SCR 211, 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2896 of 
1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.83 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, in T.A. No. 493 of 1986. 
A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant. 
A.N. Jay Ram, Additional Solicitor General, C.V. Subba Rao, T.C. 
Sharma and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal is directed agaiost the order passed by the Central 
Administrative Tribunal rejecting the petition filed by the appellant for 
granting and extendiog to him the same benefits as were granted to the 
persons similarly situate in view of the decision given by this Court in 
H Narender Chadha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in [1986] 1 SCR 
\ 
NARAYANYESHWANTGOREv. U.0.l. 
805 
211. 
A 
The brief facts that are necessary to be mentioned are that the 
appellant joined National Sample Survey Organisation as Inspector on 25th 
July, 1950. He was promoted as a Scrutiny Inspector on 4th November, 
1954. He was further appointed as Assistant Superintendent in 1955. On B 
6th March, 1961, he came to be deputed to the Census Department at

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