UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus DR. GYAN PRAKASH SINGH

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 551 · Decided: 30-09-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
DR. GYAN PRAKASH SINGH 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 
[J.S. VERMA, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law : 
Railways-Assistant Medical Officers/Assistant Divisional Medical Of-
ficers-Regularisation of Ad-hoc appointees--Directions of Court--Extension C 
of benefit-Applicability of 
The Respondent was offerred on 28. 9.1984. appointment on ad hoc 
basis. The post of Assistant Medical Officer (Class-II) in the North 
Eastern Railway for the period of six months or till the candidates selected 
by U.P.S.C. joined the railways, whichever was_.earlier. Pursuant to the D 
offer, the respondent was issued an appointment order on 1.10.1984 and 
he joined duty on 9.10.1984. 
The decision of this Court in Dr. A.K. Jain and Ors. v. Union of India 
and Others [19871 Supp. sec 497, was rendere!J. on 24.9.1987 directing E 
regularisation of the services of all doctors appointed either as Assistant 
Medical Officers or as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers on ad hoc 
basis up to 1.10/1984. The respondent was not treated to be a doctor falling 
within the category indicated in Dr. A.K Jain since his appointment was 
effective form 9.10 1984 on which date he joined duty. 
F 
Later on, the Railway Board decided to regularise the services even 
of those doctors appointed between 1.10.1984 and November 1986 who were 
found suitable by the U.P.S.C. after an interview and screening of their 
service record. In all 105 such· doctors were considered for regularisation. 
Out of them, 14, including the respondent, were found unfit by the U.P.S.C. 
for retention in service and, therefore, they were not regularised. The ad G 
hoc service of the respondent was then terminated on 9.4.1992 and the 
respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative 
Tribunal challenging the same. The Tribunal held that the ad hoc appoint-
ment of the respondent having been made by an order dated 1.10.1984, he 
was governed by the direction given by this court in Dr. A.K. Jain 
H 
551 
552 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Being aggrieved by Tribunal's decision Union of India preferred the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The expression "up to October 1,1964" in the direction 
B for regularisation obviously does not include appointments made on Oc-
tober 1, 1984. This is clear from a further part of the same direction in 
which the expression "prior to October 1,1984" occurs. After directing the 
regularisation of the ad hoc appointees up to October 1, 1984 in very same 
direction, it was said that those appointed "prior to October 1, 1984" also 
C would be considered for regularisation in spite of termination of their 
services. It is apparent that this category of doctors required to be con-
sidered for regularisation in spite of the termination of their services are 
those belonging to the same class of ad hoc appointees "up to October 1, 
1984" which means the same as the ad hoc appointees "prior to October 1, 
1984". If an appointment made on October 1, 1984 is included in that class, 
D then it would be in conflict with the expression "tJrior to October 1,1984" 
used later. Both these expressions occur in the sam'.) context and must have 
the same meaning. [556B-D] 
E 
1.2. Availability of confidential report for some period prior to 
October 1,1984 is contemplated in respect of the doctors to be so 
regularised. The direction further is that the doctors so regularised shall 
be appointed as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers "with effect from the 
date from which they have been continuously working" as Assistant Medi-
cal Officers/ Assistant Divisional Medical Officers. This direction cannot 
relate to any one who joined the service after 1.10.1984. This was meant to 
F 
benefit only those ad hoc appointees who had been continuously working 
from a date prior to October 1,1984 and not from any date subsequent to 
it. If the benefit of the direction in Dr. A.K Jain is given to the respondent, 
his appointment as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer can be only from 
October 9, 1984, the date form which he began working on the post. He can 
G be regularised in this manner only with effect from October 9, 1984 and 
not from October 1, 1984. There can be no doubt that the direction for 
regularisation was not meant to benefit any ad hoc appointee who was not 
working on the post of Assistant Medical Officer/ Assistant Divisional 
Medical Officer on Octobe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.