STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR. versus DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 04-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
ST A TE OF UTT ARANCHAL AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA 
DECEMBER 4, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Promotion-Seniority-Respondent-employee cannot claim promotion c 
ji-om date of occurrence of vacancy but can only get promotion and seniority 
fi·om the time he has been substantively appointed-High Court erred in 
-
understanding and appreciating Rules 17 and 21 of the 1995 Service Rules 
and Rule 8 of the 199 I Seniority Rules which categorically state that date 
of 'substantive appointment' is the date for determining promotion, seniority 
and other benefits-UP. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991-Rule D 
8-U.P. Agriculture Group "B" Service Rules, 1995-Rules 17 and 21. 
f- -
The questions which arose for consideration in the present appeal are 
(1) Whether the respondent has the right to claim promotion and seniority 
from 1995-96 when the vacancy arose or whether his seniority will be 
reckoned from the date of substantive appointment which is in the year 1999 E 
and (2) Whether the High Court was justified in overlooking and ignoring 
the provisions of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 and 
granting relief in favour of the Respondent 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: I. With regard to the issue as to whether the respondent has 
the right to claim promotion and seniority from 1995-96 when the vacancy 
.. 
arose or whether seniority will be reckoned from the date of substantive 
appointment which is 1999, it can be observed that an employee will be 
considered member of a cadre from the date of his/her substantive appointment G 
in the cadre after selection. 17-G-H) 
K. V Subba Rao & Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 11988) 
2 SCC 201; Smt. M Nirmala & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (1986) 
3 SCC 647 and Sanjay K. Sinha-II & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., 12004) 10 
I 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
• 
....
A sec 734, referred to. 
2.1. It is clear from Rule 8 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority 
Rules, 1991 that a person appointed on promotion shall not get seniority of 
any earlier year but shall get the seniority of the year in which his/her 
B appointment is made. Therefore, in the present fact situation the respondent 
cannot claim promotion from the date of occurrence of the vacancy which is 
1995-96 but can only get promotion and seniority from the time he has been 
substantively appointed i.e. from 1999. Likewise, the seniority also will be 
counted against the promotion/appointment in the cadre from the date of 
issuance of order of substantive appointment in the said cadre, i.e. from 
c 19.11.1999. (9-C-D) 
2.2. The High Court committed an error in understanding and 
appreciating Rules 17 and 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Group "B" 
.. 
Service Rules, 1995 and Rule 8 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority 
Rules, 1991, which categorically states that the date of 'substantive 
D appointment' will be the date that shall be taken for determining promotion, 
?--
~ 
seniority and other benefits. 113-B-CI 
Uttaranchal Forest Rangers Association (Direct Recruit) & Ors. v. State 
o/UP.& Ors., (2006) 9 Scale 577; KC. Joshiv. Union of India, (1992) Suppl 
E 
1 SCC 272; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Akhouri Sachidananda Nath & Ors., 
[1991] Suppl. 1SCC334; Vinodanand Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., 
[1994) Suppl. 2 SCC 44 and Jagdish Ch. Patnaik & Ors. v. State of Orissa & 
Ors., [1998) 4 SCC 456, referred to. 
t 
3. The representations of the respondent dated 17.07.2001 and 
F 27.05.2002 had been decided by the appellant by a well reasoned and speaking 
order vide its office memo dated 01.10.2002. It is pertinent to mention here 
that the respondent had concealed this fact Thus, the respondent by misleading 
the Court has obtained the order from the High Court that the appellant shall 
decide the representation which has been already decided by the appellant on 
.4 
01.10.2002. The High Court should not have interfered with the finding of 
G the Appellants and directed them to "consider" the representation of the 
respondent, which in effect will amount to the reconsideration of the claim 
made by the respondent [ 11-F; 14-Fl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5573 of2006. 
H 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.3.2005 of the High Court 
.... .. 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
3 
., 
of Uttaranchal at Nainital in W.P. No. 369 (S/B)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.