UNION OF INDIA versus B. JAYARAMAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 712 · Decided: 13-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
B. JAYARAMAN AND ORS. 
MAY 13,1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHW AR DAY AL, JJ .] 
Government of Pondiclterry (Group 'C'-Non Gazetted Ministerial Posts) 
Recruitment Rules, 1981 : Schedule Vll Column II- Recruitment to the post of 
Superintendent Grade I by promotion from among the Superintendent Grade II 
who have completed five years of service in that post-Note and Proviso 
thereunder-Purpose and scope-Whether only for the purpose of giving eligibil-
ity to the erstwhile secretaria!Assistants working as·superintendents Grade II for 
consideration for promotion from the cadre of Superintendent Grade II to the 
cadre of Superintendent Grade I 
Service Jurisprudence-Nonna/ Rule of length of service-Applicability of 
The petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal had been 
working as Superintendents Grade II in the Secretariat of the Government of 
Pondicherry prior to the promotion of respondents Nos. 2. to 13 (before the 
Tribunal), the erstwhile Secretariat Assistants as Superintendents Grade II. 
Respondent Nos 2 to 13 were further promoted as Superintendents Grade I 
before the petitioners on the basis of tentative Seniority list wherein the feeder 
service rendered by the Assistants between 1.l.1973and 31.7.1981 had been 
included for computing the seniority in the Grade of Superintendent Grade 
II. 
F 
The petitioners before the Tribunal aggrieved by the grant of benefit of 
G 
service rendered during the period 1.1.1973 to 31.7.1981 by those who were 
working in the grade of Assistants towards their seniority in the grade of 
Superintendent Grade II challenged the promotion of respondent Nos 2to13 
there in who were promoted from Secretarial Assistants to St;aperintendents 
Grade II and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I before them 
inspite of the fact that the petitioners had already been working as Superin-
tendents Grade II prior to the promotion of the erstwhile Assistant as 
Superintendents Grade It 
It was contended by the petitioners before the Tribunal that from 
l .8.1981 respondents Nos. 2 to 13 who were Assistants and were in a distincdy 
712 
-
-
U.O.I. v. B. JAYARAMAN 
713 
lower scale of pay as compared to them could not be promoted to the post of A 
Superintendents Grade I before the petitioners. The Tribunal allowed toe 
applications and set aside the promotions of respondents No. 2to13 before it. 
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the Union oflndia had preferred 
the present appeals. 
Agreeing with the reasonings and conclusions of the Tribunal & dis-
missing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD : The note in Column II is only for purposes of giving eligibility 
to the erstwhilEAssistants working as Superintendents Grade II for purposes 
of being considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade I and 
not for the purpose of seniority at all. The note merely allows the erstwhile 
Assistants, who were promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade II to 
include their service rendered as Assistants after 1.1.1973 to 31.7.1981 for 
purposes of counting the period of five years service as Superintendent Grade 
II. This note is for no purpose other than for giving them eligibility for 
consideration for promotion from the cadre of superintendent Grade II to the 
cadre of Superintendent Grade I. (718- A) 
2. On general principles of service Jurisprudentee the Assistants having 
been promoted to the Grade of Superintendents Grade II after those already 
working as Superintendents Grade II would natUrally rank junior to them. 
There is no rule of seniority vis-a-vis for promotes to Superintendent Grade 
II with effect from 1st August, 1981 for calculating seniority and normal rule 
of service Jurisprudence· of'length of service will apply. (718-D) 
B 
c 
D 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4604 to 4609 Of 
F 
1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8. 1989 of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No. 145 to 150/87. 
A.S. Nambiar, P.K. Manohar and Shanti Vasudevan for the Appellant. 
R. Venkataramni, V.G. Pragasani and S.M. Garg for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 3 S.C 
YOGESHWAR DAY ALJ. These six appeals have been filed against the 
decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated 22nd 
August, 1989 while disposing. of Original Application Nos. 145 to 150 of 1987. 
Those were filed in ser

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