STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus SHRI J. L. SHARMA AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 174 · Decided: 18-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
SHRI J.L. SHARMA AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 18, 1997 
B 
[G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAJK, JJ.] 
Service Law 
Himachal Pradesh Forest Service (Class JI) Recruitment, Promotion 
_. 
C and Certain Conditions of Service Rules, 1966-Rule (4), Schedule, Column 
(10)-Seniority-Direct Recruits-Training period-For the purpose of 
seniorit-'Jn service'' Interpretation of-Held, for the purpose of seniority 
training period will be treated as part of service-Constitution of India, 
1950-Art. 309. 
D 
The respondents were class II promotee officers of the Himachal 
Pradesh Forest Service, governed by the Himachal Pradesh Forest Service 
(Class II) Recruitment Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service Rules, 
1966. The respondents filed an application before the Himachal Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal for a direction that direct recruits to the Forest 
E Service Class II were entitled to their seniority from the date of their joining 
the service and not from the date of their joining the training. The Tribunal" 
while allowing the above application held that training period of direct recruits 
would be counted only for the purpose of getting pay and not for the purpose 
of seniority. Aggrieved, the State came up in appeal. 
F 
The contention of the appellant State was that in view of the amended 
provisions of the Recruitment Rules, the training period of a direct recruit 
was to be treated as "in service" and therefore the said period necessarily 
would be counted for the purpose of determining the seniority of a direct 
recruit in the service. 
G 
The contention of the respondents was that the Rules read as a whole 
clearly indicate that the amended provision merely conferred a right upon 
a candidate joining the Institute for Training to get pay in the lowest stage 
of the pay scale and the said training period cannot be counted for the 
purpose of determining the seniority of the direct recruits. It was further 
H contended that column (7) of the Schedule to the Rules clearly provides that 
174 
STATE v. J.L. SHARMA 
175 
before becoming a member of the service, a direct recruit has to obtain A 
certain essential qualifications, and before obtaining the essential 
qualifications, the training period cannot be counted for the purpose of 
seniority. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : l. l. The training period of the direct recruits shall be counted 
for determining the seniority in the service provided the said direct recruits 
successfully complete the training and then absorbed in Class II Forest 
Service. The Tribunal committed serious error of law in holding that the 
training period will be treated to be 'in service' only for the purpose of 
B 
getting pay and not for the purpose of seniority. (180-C; 178-C] 
C 
1.2. The language of Column (10) of the Schedule to the Rule of 
Amendment Rules of 1986 is clear and unambiguous and unequivocally 
indicates that the period of training shall be treated as 'in service'. There 
is no prohibition or restrictions in the statutory Rules for counting the 
training period for the purpose of seniority. Thus, training period will be D 
treated as a-part of the service and will necessarily be counted for the 
seniority of direct recruits. 1179-D-FI 
2. The Legislature under Art. 309 of Constitution of India has the 
power to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons 
appointed to public service or post in connection with the affairs of Union or E 
any State. In exercise of such power under the proviso to Article 309 the 
Recruitment Rules to the Himachal Pradesh Forest Service Class II has 
been made and the said Rules also has been amended. The amended Rules, 
therefore, is a competent legislation determining the service conditions of 
persons recruited to the Himachal Pradesh Forest Service Class II. 
F 
1178-E-GI 
R.S. Ajara & others v. State of Gujarat and others, (1997] 3 SCC 641 
and A.N. Sehgal and others v. Raje Ram Sheoran and others, (1992( Supp. 
1 sec 304, referred to. 
Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Mishra and others, [19931 G 
Supp. 3 SCC 181, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7767 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.96 of the Himachal Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal, Shim la, in O.A. No. I 09 of 1987. 
H 
176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Rajiv Nanda for T. Sridharan for the Appellant. 
B 
Naresh K. Sharma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of t

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