UNION OF INDIA versus DHARAM PAL ETC.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 12-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 2 S.C.R. 193 
UNION OF INDIA 
A 
~ 
v. 
DHARAM PAL ETC. 
Civil Appeal No. 948 Of 2009 
FEBRUARY 12, 2009 
B 
(S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) 
Service Law : 
-> 
Indian Railway Establishment Manual - Rule 17 4, 213, 
216, 302: 
c 
Regularisation of service - Appointment of clerks on of-
ficiating basis in an ad hoc manner - Representation for regu-
larization and promotion - Rejection of - Tribunal directing 
regularization of persons with three years continuous service 
- High Court dismissing appeal thereagainst - On appeal, 
D 
~ 
Held: Both the Tribunal and High Court committed a serious 
\ 
error in not taking into consideration the binding authorities of 
Supreme Court - Hence their orders set aside. 
The correctness of the orders passed by the Tribu-
E 
nal and the High Court in directing regularization of ser-
vices of candidates appointed on officiating basis in an 
ad hoc manner, has been questioned in the appeal. 
-•, 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Rule 216 of Indian Railway Establishment 
F 
Manual (IREM) in no uncertain terms provides that ad hoc 
appointment should be made for short duration vacancy 
only. Such orders of promotion are required to be made 
only upon obtaining the approval of Chief Personnel Of-
ficer. In the instant case, such an approval was not ob-
G 
, 
tained. Approval was obtained only at the Divisional level. 
_,. 
Even while extending the period of three months, the cir-
cular letter of the Board dated 23.2.1974 laying down for 
193 
H 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A sanction of the General Manager, therefore, had not been 
complied with. [Para 14] [206-E, F, G] 
1.2 When an ad hoc appointment is made, the same 
must be done in terms of the rules for all purposes. If the 
mandatory provisions of the rules had not been complied 
B with, in terms of Direct Recruit, the period shall not be 
taken into consideration for the purpose of reckoning se-
niority. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that an appoint-
ment is made on an ad hoc basis but it is another thing to 
say that inter se seniority would be determined on the ba-
C sis laid down in another rule. [Para 14] [206-H; 207-A, B] 
Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association 
& ors. VS. State of Maharashtra & ors. (1990) 2 sec 715; 
Swapan Kumar Pal & ors. vs. Samitabhar Chakraborty& ors. 
D (2001) 5 SCC 581; State of WB. & ors. vs. Aghore Nath Dey & 
ors. (1993) 3 SCC 371; MK. Shanmugam & anr. vs. Union of 
India & ors. (2000) 4 SCC 476 and R.K. Mobisana Singh vs. 
Kh. Temba Singh <$.ors. (2008) 1 sec 747 - relied on. 
T. Vijayan & ors. vs. Divisional Railway Manager & ors. 
E (2000)4 SCC 20 and Raj Kishore Vishwakarma & ors. vs. Union 
of India & ors. (1997) 11 SCC 619 - distinguished. 
2. It is now well settled that even power of relaxation 
even specifically provided in the appointing authority him-
F 
self being created by a statute cannot be exercised in an 
arbitrary and cavalier fashion. [Para 16] [211-E, F] 
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. and Ors. v. Sajal Kumar 
Roy and Ors. (2006) 8 sec 671 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
G 
(2000) 4 sec 20 
distinguished 
Para 11 
1990) 2 sec 11s 
relied on 
Para 14 
(2001) s sec ss1 
relied on 
Para 14 
H 
(1993) 3 sec 371 
relied on 
Para 14 
-~-
-j. 
....... 
~ 
• 
-{ 
UNION OF INDIA V. DHARAM PAL ETC. 
195 
(2000) 4 sec 476 
/ 
(2008) 1 sec 747 
(1997) 11 sec 619 
(2006) a sec 671 
relied on 
Para 14 
relied on 
Para 14 
distinguished 
Para 16 
relied on 
Para 16 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 948 
of 2009 
From the Judgement and Order dated 13.7.2005 in CWP 
Nos. 8457/2000, 8458/2000 & 8489/2000 of the High Court of 
A 
B 
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh 
C 
S. Wasim A. Qadri, B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. 
D.R. Sharma, Praveen Jain for the Respondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
S.8. SINHA, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
D 
2. Union of India is before us aggrieved by and dissatis-
fied with a judgment and order dated 13. 7.2005 passed by the 
E 
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ 
Petition Nos. 8457/2000, 8458/2000 and 8489/2000. 
3. Respondents herein joined the Railway services as Sig-
nal Khalasis in S & T Department, Delhi Division, Northern Rail-
way in the year 1970. The next promotional post was the one of 
F 
Material Checking Clerk (MCC). The terms and conditions of 
service are governed by Indian Railway Establishment Manual 
(IREM). Rule 174 of IREM reg

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