SHRI A.K. NIGAM AND ORS. versus SHRI SUNIL MISRA AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 13-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHRI AK. NIGAM AND ORS. 
v. 
SHRI SUNIL MISRA AND ANR. 
MAY 13, 1994 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
Service Law-Seniority-Held, it is not an invariable rule that seniority 
should be detennined only on the basis of the respective dates of appointment 
to the post-f'rinciples for detennining the Relative Seniority of Class I Officers 
C of All India Services on Indian Railways except Officers of the Medical 
Depanment and the olher Misc. CategorieH..aid down. 
The Appellants who originally belonged to the Railway Board 
Secretariat Service (RBSS), were promoted to the Indian Railway Person· 
nel Service (IRPS). Appellants 1 and 2 were substantively appointed to the 
D Junior Scale of the IRPS on 15·2·1984 and appellant No. 3 on 24-12-1985. 
Respondent No. 1 was selected for the IRPS as a direct recruit Class I 
Officer on 12- 1-1982. However, appellants 1 and 2 were given seniority with 
effect from 15-2-1979 and appellant No. 3 w.e.f. 24-12-1980, by applying 
clause (a) of Principles (vii) of the principles for detennlnlng the Relative 
E Seniority of Class I Officers of All India Services on Indian Railways 
Except Officers of the Medical Department and other Misc. Categories 
("Principles") which provided for weigbtage upto five years. Respondent 
No. 1 challenged the seniority given to the Appellants .over him by filing 
an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal 
F 
Bench, New Delhi. The Tribunal allowed the application, holding that the 
Appellants could not be ranked senior to him. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, this Court 
HELD : 1. The principle of granting seniority on the basis of past 
G service and lower service to the category of promotee officers Is well known 
and well recognised In service jurisprudence. It Is not an Invariable rule 
that seniority should be determined on the basis of the respective dates of 
appointment to the post and that any departure from It would be un-
reasonable and Illegal. [130-H-B] 
H · 
2. It is settled law that the appointing authority or the appropriate 
126 
A.K. NIGAM v. SUNIL MiSl.lA 
127 
Government can frame rules governing seniority which are reasonable A 
keeping in mind the divergent claims that can be put forward by the various 
categories or the members or the service. It is however necessary that there 
should be no discrimination, that is, persons placed in the same group must 
be treated similarly and further, that any principle which is made the basis 
or the determination or seniority should if applicable to others, be applied 
to them also. In other words, if seniority is to depend purely upon the date 
or confirmation or the date or appointment, the rule should be applicable to 
all; but if the promotees and special recruits are being given weigbtage, the 
principles applicable to the members or the service should be kept in mind 
while determining the weightage to be given or while laying down rules for 
determination of seniority. [131-F·G-H; 132-A) 
3. Seniority in IRPS is not governed by the date of joining. The dates 
of increment of the Appellants having been specifically determined by the 
authorities in accordance with Principle (vii) (a) before Respondent No. 1 
joined service, be bas to rank junior to the Appellants. [130-A; CJ 
State of A.P. v. KS. Mur/idhar, (1992) 2 SCC 214 and Anand Prakash 
Saksena v. Union of India, [1968) 2 SCC 611, relied on. 
State of Bihar v. A.Khuri Sachindra Nath, (1991) Supp. 1 SCC 334. 
B 
c 
D 
and KC. Vasundeva v. Union of India, [1980) Supp. SCC 341, distin-
E 
guished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6037 of 
1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.1993 of the Central Ad-
F 
ministrative Tribunal (Priocipal Bench) New Delhi in O.A. No. 1422 of 
1987. 
K. Madhava Reddy, T.C. Sharma, D. Parkash Reddy and Neelam 
Sharma for the Appellants. 
G 
Harish N. Salve, Ms. Meenakshi Grover, R. Chatterjee and Arun K 
Sinha for the Respondent No. 1. 
P.P. Malhotra, R.P. Srivastava and Mrs. C.V.S. Rao for the Respon-
dent No. 2. 
H 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. This is an appeal on behalf of appellants 
S/Shri AK. Nigam, K. Thiagarajan and Suresh Kumar against the judgment 
dated 5th March, 1993 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal 
Bench, New Delhi, in O.A No. 1422 of 1987 filed by respondent No. 1 Shri 
Sunil Misra challenging the seniority list 

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