STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. versus O.P. GUPTA ETC.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 468 · Decided: 12-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
O.P. GUPTA ETC. 
JANUARY 12, 1996 
B 
[K.RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Servil·e Law : 
Har_vana Stale Service Engineers Class II Public Works Department 
C 
(lrrigalio11 Branch) Rules, 1970-Ru/e 9-Se11iority--Nolio11al promolion-
E11title1neut to arrears of sahuy froni that date--Held; Not entitled to since 
e1nployees had 11ot actually 11,iorked in the pron1otional posts during the said 
period--High Court's order directing payn1ent o.f arrears o.f salary--Quashed. 
Palul'll Ramakrishnaiah & Ors. v. Union of India & Am:, (1989] 2 
D 
SCR 92 at page 109 and Virellller Kumar v. Avinash Chandra Chadlw, 
(1990] 3 sec 482, relied on. 
Union ()f India v. K. V. Ja11kirama11, AIR (1991) SC 2010, held 
inapplicable. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2415 of 1996 
Etc. 
\ 
' 
) 
.. 
From the Judgment and order dated 29.9.93 of the Punjab & Haryana 
.._ 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 6760 of 1993. 
F 
Sunil Kumar Gupta, Ms. Shruti Pandey and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the 
G 
appellants. 
Ms. K. Sharda Devi, S.M. Hooda and M.S. Dahiya for the Respond-
en ts. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard the counsel on both sides. The controversy runs on a 
very narrow thread. 
H 
Admittedly, the respondents were working in Haryana Service Engi-
468 
) 
' 
STATE v. 0.P. GUPTA 
469 
ncers, Class II Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch). They are 
A 
governed by the Haryana Service Engineers Class II Public works Depart-
ment (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1970. There was inter se dispute regarding 
the promotion to the higher echelons of service which ultimately resulted in 
the order passed by this Court on August 7, 1990 in Civil Appeal No. 3837/ 
90. Therein this Court had directed the Government to prepare the seniority 
B 
list in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules ignoring the instructions 
contained in para 11.4 of the Manual and any other inconsistent instruction 
running counter to the Rules and to prepare a fresh list strictly in accordance 
with the rules untrammelled by inconsistent observations made by the High 
Court. It was also mentioned that if any promotions had already been made, 
those promotions were directed not to be disturbed. Following the directions, 
seniority list has been prepared and promotions accordingly were given to all 
the eligible persons. We are informed that about 90 persons have been 
promoted. They have also been given the scale of pay to which they are 
eligible in the promoted posts. The respondents in these appeals have 
approached the High Court by filing writ petitions claiming payment of 
arrears. The High Court in the impugned order dated 29.9.1993 made in 
CWP No. 6760/93 and batch directed payment of arrears from the deemed 
date given in the seniority list to the date of their posting in the promotional 
posts. Thus, these appeals by special leave. 
The only controversy in these cases is : whether the respondents are 
entitled to arrears of salary for the period during which admittedly they had 
not worked but they had been given notional promotion from the deemed 
date. We have computed the deemed date as January 1, 1983. They have 
joined the duty on December l, I 99L. Therefore, the period for which they 
claimed arrears would be from January I, 1983 to November 30, 1992. We 
are informed that some of them had retired even before that date and, 
therefore, they have been given notional promotion till the date of their 
retiremeht. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Shri Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the State, contended that the 
G 
State was prepared to comply with the direction issued by the High Court in 
the first instance for the preparation of the seniority list but the rival 
candidates who clairned Inter se seniority over the others approached the 
Division Bench and also this Court for relief; since, ulti1nately, this Court 
has decided that seniority has to be prepared strictly in accordance with Rule 
H 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] I S.C.R. 
A 
9 of the Rules, on receipt thereof , the Government have complied with the 
conditions of the preparation of the seniority list. Accordingly, they have 
been given the promotion with the deemed dates, though there was no 
specific direction in that behalf . Others who had joined the service have not 
claimed, except the respondents, but some of them were not even parties to 
B 
the earlier writ proceedings or to the appeal in this Court and con
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.