UNION OF INDIA ETC versus TARA CHAND SHARMA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 1179 · Decided: 13-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. 
A 
v. 
TARA CHAND SHARMA AND ORS. ETC. 
AUGUST 13, 1998 
[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
SERVICE LAW-Seniority-Post of Computors-Ad hoc appointments 
for 1981 Census-Regularisation of services of respondents 5 to 37-
Respondents 1 to 4 temporarily promoted to those posts reverted from that 
cadre on abolition of posts-Reversion order upheld by this Court- C 
Respondents 5 to 37 still continuing as Computers held as senior in the 
cadre. 
For 1981 Census certain posts were created in the cadre of Computors. 
Respondents 5 to 37 were appointed against those posts but were continued D 
even after the Census operation. Their services were regularised by the 
order of Registrar General in consultation with the Department of Personnel 
and Training by an order dated 12-3-1991, indicating that the past services 
rendered by them before regularisation would also count for their seniority 
as well as eligibility for promotion to the higher grade. Respondents 1 to 4 
were promoted as Computors on regular basis between the period 20-8-1990 E 
to 10-10-1990. In the seniority list drawn up on 12-4-1993, respondents 5 
to 37 having been placed above respondents 1 to 4 , a representation was 
made by respondents 1 to 4 which was rejected. However, the Administrative 
Tribunal holding that the ad hoc appointees were not entitled to get their 
services as ad hoc for the purpose of counting the seniority since the 
appointment itself was dehors the rules, held respondents 1 to 4 to be senior F 
to respondents 5 to 37 in the cadre of Computors. These appeals had been 
filed against the decision of the Tribunal, the inter se seniority between 
respondents 1 to 4 and respondents 5 to 37 being the subject matter for 
consideration in the appeals. 
The promotion of respondents 1 to 4 to the post of computor being not 
on a substantive basis, after expiry of the sanction of the posts of Computor 
created for 1991 census, they were reverted on account of non availability 
of posts of Computor in the cadre. Though the Tribunal annulled the order 
G 
of reversion, in appeal, this Court approved reversion of respondents 1 to 4, 
holding that the fact of abolition of posts having been established and H 
1179 
1180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 
A respondents 1 to 4 having been temporarily promoted to those posts, which 
had been abolished, they could not raise any objection for the consequential 
reversal order. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. Respondents 1 to 4 were no longer continuing as computors, 
their order of reversion having been upheld by this Court, the question of 
determining their inter se seniority with respondents 5 to 37 in the cadre 
of Computor would not arise. While respondents 5 to 37 are still continuing 
.. 
as Computors their services having been regularised by the order of Registrar 
C General in consultation with the Department of Personnel, respondents 1 to 
4 have been reverted from that cadre and therefore respondents 5 to 37 would 
be held to be senior in the cadre of Computors. [1182-A-C) 
1.2. In view of the above, the question as to whether the order of 
Registrar General directing that the services of respondents 5 to 37 even 
D prior to regularisation can be counted for the purpose of their seniority in 
the cadre need not be examined. [1182-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3946-
3949 of 1988 Etc. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.8.95 of the Central Administrative 
1ribunal, Jaipur in 0.A. Nos. 93, 121-122 and 172 of1994. 
F 
G 
Raju Ramachandran, (Heman! Sharma) for P. Parmeshwaran, for the 
Appellants in C.A. No. 3946-49/98. 
Surya Kant for the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 3950-53/98. 
M.N. Krishnamani and Sudarsh Menon for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 
The inter se seniority between respondents nos. I to 4 who had been 
promoted to the post ofComputors on regular basis on 20.8.90 and 10.10.90 
and the ad hoc appointees to the said posts respondent nos. 5 to 3 7 herein 
whose services were regularised on 14.3.1991 is the subject matter for 
consideration in these appeals. It transpires from the available materials on 
H record that certain posts having been created for 1981 Census in the cadre 
U.0.1. v. T. C. SHARMA [PATTANAIK, J.] 
1181 
of Computors respondents nos. 5 to 3 7 were appointed against those posts A 
but ev

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