LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus M. RAVI VARMA AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. M. RA VI VARMA AND ORS. ETC. January 4, 1972 JJ. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA, H. R. KHANNA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.) B Civil Service--0/]ice Memorandum of Union Mjnistry oi Home ADair& dated June 22, 1949 laying. down that seniority of Central Government &trvt.:nts· ,in the same gradt shalt be !fOVerned by length o/ jervice-Sub1• que'!t(v Office Memorandum dated December 20, 1959 lavin.~ down that .s~~lority to be deter1nined on 1he basis of general principles anne:ced 10 Memorandum-Memorandum of 1959 is not retrospective--Persons DP- po/hted 6efore it are goverlled by 1949 Memorandum. In. ~fdel" t~ provide for the seniority of Centrai Government servants ·displ,aeed 'from Pakistan the Home Ministry by Office Memorandum dated JUne 22, 1949 laid down that the seniority o( all Central Government servants in the same grade shall be governed by the length of their service in that grade. By 1959 the object underlying that memorandum had been achieved. Accordingly by another memorandum dated O~cember 20, 1959 the Home Ministry decided that in respect of persons appointed after that date the' !}'neral rules annexed to the memorandJm sl\all apply, one of those being that seniority shall be governed by the date of cbn- ·firmation and not length of service. In 1957 the Central Board of ReVenue issued a circular wheteby seniority in. the: offices under it was to be determined on the basis of date of ·eonfirmation. In. 1962 a revised ·seniority list of employees under the Central Board pf Revenue was prepared on the basis of date of confirma- tion~ As a result respondents G and R wh<i were Inspectdrs of Central Excise lost several positions in the seniority. These respondents had been appointed in 1947 and confirmed in 1956. They filed writ petitions in the High . Court of Mysore. The High Court held that the memoran- ,dum of ,1949 applied to their case and their sen'ority must.be decided on the basis. of length of service and not the date of confirmation. S and T wore employees under the Directorate General of Health ·Services, Government of India. They had jo'ned service in 1950 and !951 respectively. In the seniority list, which had h'en prepared on the basis of leng'h of service in accordance with the Office Mem0ran~um ·of 1949 their po,itions were 32 and 34. Su'Jsequent!y Memorandum dated June 19 1963 was is•ued by the D'rectdrate Ge"eral of Hea!th Ser- vices in which it was stated that Scheduled Cas'tes and Sched•_1Jrd TriJ.,es c"andidates who _were confirrMd in reserved vacancies wo'11d rank senior to temryorary. includin~ quasi-permanent pers0n'\ ir .. e~oective of · their pOsitions in the seniority list. As a t-eslllt of the a'"lolicat:on of this orin- ·ciple S and T lost seniority bv several positions. Tliev filed writ "etitions in the Hioh Court of Puni•h and Haryana. The Single Judge di•missed their petitions but the Division Bench allowed them on the ground that the Memorandum d1ted June 19, 1963 iss•ied by the Directorate of Health S<>:rvicP:S--wfl~ not in consonance with the Home Ministry's Memo--- randa 1949 and 1959. Against the judl!IIlents of the High Courts the Uriioo of India and -0thcrs 3ppealed to this Court, Dismissing the appeals, c D E G .; ( fl A B UNION V. RAVI VARMA (Khanna, /.) 993 HELD : (I) The Ollie'!: Memorandum dated December 22, 1959' expressly made it clear that the general principles embodied in the anoexure thereto were not to have retrospective effect. In order to put. the matter beyond any pale of controve'rsy, it was mentioned that "here- after the seniority of all persons appointed in the various Central Services after the date of these instructions should be determined in accordanceo with the General .principles annexed hereto". H was, therefOre, manifest. that except in cenain cases with which the present appeals were not COD• cerw..d the Office Memorandum dated Dec'ember 22, 1959 and the provi- sions laid do\.\'ll in the Ann~xure thereto could not apply to pefsons ap· pointed to the various central services before the date of that Mem<>- randum. LI 000 G] there was thus no escape from the conclusion that the seniority of G arid respondents who were appointed p:rior to December 22, 1959 would C have to be determined on the basis of their length of servire in accord- ance with the Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 and not on the basis of date of their confirmation, This
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.