LexUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus PRATAP NARAIN AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC. A ~ v. PRATAP NARAIN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. APRIL 29, 1992 ~ [KULDIP SINGH AND R.M. SARAI, JJ.] B Civil Services-Indian Statistical Service Rules-Rules 8, 9C(a}-Grade IV-Seniority-Fixation of-Interpretation of Judgment of Supreme Court in Narender Chadha's case [1986} 1 SCR 211-"Post''-<:onstruction of- ..___ Whether includes cadre post or ex-cadre post. c t This Court in Narender Chadha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., ~/ [1986) 1 SCR 211 decided the dispute regarding seniority 'between promotees and direct recruits belonging to Indian Economics Service and the Indian Statistical Service and directed the Union Government, (i) to D treat all persons, stated to have been promoted contrary to Rules, having been regularly appointed to Grade IV of the Service; (ii) to assign them seniority form the date of their continuous officiating in Grade IV posts; and (iii) Even those promotees who were selected for regular promotion in 1970, 1982 and 1984 to. be assigned seniority from the dates they commenced officiation continuously in Grade IV prior to their selection. E -r The directions of this Court were implemented and a seniority list of Grade IV of the Indian Statistical Service, was issued on May 8, 1986. Consequent promotions to Grade III were made vide Notification dated -- May 22, 1986. F The direct recruits in Grade IV of the Service challenged the seniority list ·and the promotions before the Tribunal on the ground that the seniority list was in violation of the directions of this Court in Narender ~-( Chadha's case, contending that the promotees who officiated against "cadre posts" in the Service, alone were entitled to the benefit of the period G towards seniority and those who officiated against "Ex-cadre posts" were not entitled to such benefit. The promotees and the Union of India contended before the Tribunal ,._ that this Court in Narender Chadha's case based its conclusions on the reasoning that the promotees were holding posts in the service for about H 957 958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R. A 15 years and as sU:ch they could not be treated ~s ad hoc appointees; that ,... this Court did not make any distinction between the holder of a 'cadre' post or 'ex cadre' post; that the promo~s were to be treated regular members of the Service from the date of promotion and as such whole of the period of their service whether against cadre or ex cadre post had to B be counted towards seniority. The Tribunal allowed the applications against which the present A appeals and a writ petition were filed before this Court by special leave by the promotees and the Union of India. c On the question : whether the expression "posts" used by this Court ........ in Narender Chadha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1986] 1 SCR 211 ~ was "cadre posts" or it included the Ex-cadre posts held by the promotees in the Indian Statistical Service, or whether the benefit of continuous ~ officiation towards seniority was to be confined to the period spent against the cadre post, this Court allowing the appeals filed by the promotees and D dismissing the writ petition, HELD : 1.01. This Court made the promotees regular members of Grade IV Service from the day they are continuously holding posts in the said Service. This Court did not make any ~stinction between a cadre post E or an ex-cadre post. This Court laid-down in clear terms that the promotees are entitled to count towards seniority the entire period of service in Grade rv posts whether cadre or ex-cadre. (960 H, 961 B-CJ ~y-- 1.02. This Court intended to fix the seniority of the promotees on the basis of continuous length of sei:vice irrespective of the fact whether the F length of service was against a cadre post or an ex-cadre post. The promotees included in the Select List of 1970, 1982 and 1984 against their quota vacancies have been given seniority from an earlier date when they started officiating in a Grade IV job. (968 CJ 1.03. This Court has nowhere useci the expression "cadre post" or -,-. :}- G "ex-cadre post" in the judgment. Needless to say that these words are the alphabet of service jurisprudence. [968 DJ 1.04. The word 'post' has been used to indicate an appointment, a job or a position to which a person is appointed. [968 EJ ~ H Narendet Cl1adha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, [1986J 1 SCR U.0.1. v. PRATAP NARAIN [KULDIP SINGH,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.