UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION (U.T.) CHANDIGARH AND ANR. versus S.K. SHARMA, PROFESSOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE, CHANDIGARH

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 459 · Decided: 03-04-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CHANDIGARH 
A 
ADMINISTRATION (U.T.) CHANDIGARH AND ANR. 
v. 
S.K. SHARMA, PROFESSOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PUNJAB 
ENGINEERING COLLEGE, CHANDIGARH 
APRIL 3, 1992 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Seniority-Fixation of-Appointment on ad hoc C 
basis-Subsequent regularisation of appointment-Seniority to be reckoned 
from the date of regular appointment-Period of ad hoc service rendered not 
to be counted. 
The respondent was temporarily appointed as Professor (Junior 
Scale) in the Department of Irrigation and Hydraulics, Punjab. Sub-
D 
sequently, he was selected as Professsor (Junior Scale) on regular basis in 
the Civil Engineering Department of the Punjab Engineering College. In 
view of the fact that the post of Professor (Junior Scale) was not vacant in 
the Civil Engineering Department, he was adjusted on ad hoc basis against 
the vacant post of Professor (P.G. Course) in the Department of Irrigaion E 
and Hydraulics in his own grade from 28.6.1969 to 14.2.1971 and thereafter 
from 15.2.1971 to 29.9.1973 against the post of Professor (Senior Scale) in 
the Civil Engineering Department. From 29.9.1973 he was selected as 
Professor (Senior Scale) on regular basis. 
The respondent was not paid his pay and allowances for the period F 
for which he worked against the post of Professor (P.G. Course) or (Senior 
Scale) on ad hoc basis from 28.6.1969 to 29.9.1973. He filed an application 
before the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh claiming pay and 
allowances for the aforesaid period which was allowed. In accordance with 
the judgment of the Tribunal he was sanctioned pay and allowances but 
the period for which he worked on ad hoc basis was not reckoned for the G 
purposes of seniority. He filed an application before the Tribunal claiming 
seniority on the post of Professor (Senior Scale) counting the entire period 
of his continuous ad hoc appointment from 28.6.1969 to 29.9.1973. The 
Tribunal held that the respondent was given ad hoc appointment on the 
post of Professor (Senior Scale) from 1969 to 1973 after consultation with H 
459 
460 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
the Union Public Service Commission and as such he was entitled to claim 
his seniority from 28.6.1969. Aga.inst the order of the Tribunal an appeal 
was filed in this Court. 
B 
c 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Tribunal, this 
Court, 
HELD :1. The respondent was not entitled to claim his seniority on 
the post of Professor (Senior scale) from 28.6.1969 and the appellants had 
rightly counted his seniority from 29.9.1973 when he was regularly selected 
in accordance with rules on the said post. [ 465C] 
2. The order of the Tribunal granting pay and allowances cannot 
confer any right on the respondent to claim seniority on the post of 
Professor (Senior Scale). The approval of U.P .S.C. for the continuation of 
the respondent on the post of Professor (Senior Scale) on ad hoc basis was 
merely for the purpose of granting pay and allowances and it cannot be 
D considered as a regular appointment of' the respondent on the post of 
Professor (Senior Scale). Therefore, the Tribunal was totally wrong in 
granting seniority to the respondent for the period of ad hoc appointment 
on the post of Professor (Senior Scale). [463E-H, 464A] 
E 
Narender Chadha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1986] 2 S.C.C. 
157, distinguished. 
Massod Akhtar Khan and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., 
[1990) 4 S.C.C. 24; D.N. Agrawal and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 
Ors., [1990] 2 S.C.C. 553; Direct Recntit Class II Engineering Officers' 
F Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1990) 2 S.C.C. 715, relied on. 
KN. Mishra v. Union of India, A.T.R. (1986) 2 CAT 270, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3082 of 
G 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.88 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 582/CH 
of 1986. 
H 
Kapil Sibal and Ranjit Kumar for the Appellants. 
-
> 
--
U.0.1. v. S. K. SIV\.RMA [KASLIWAL, J.] 
461 
J.S. Bajwa, Ms. Bharti Sharma and Ms. Rani Chhabra for the A 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KASLfWAL, J. Union of India and the Home Secretary Chandigarh 
Administration have filed this appeal by grant of special leave challenging 
the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh dated March 
3, 1988. The Respondent, Shri S.K. Sharma was a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.