UNION OF INDIA versus KULDIP SINGH PERMER AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 18-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
KULDIP SINGH PERMER AND ORS. 
AUGUST 18, 2003 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Special Service Bureau (Junior Executive) Service Rules, 1976 and 
Government of India instructions issued vide OM No.9-11155, RPS, dated C 
December 22, 1959; Clause 7(iv): 
Seniority of absorbee-Regular Service rendered in the parent 
Department-Counting of-Held: On revision of the scale of Pay in the 
parent Department incumbent was holding the post on regular basis in a D 
higher grade-Regular services rendered could be counted as per rules-
Thus entitled to be assigned seniority in the borrowing Department with 
effect from the date of such revision in the scale of pay. 
Words and Phrases: 
'equivalent post' and 'equivalent grade '-Distinction between in the E 
context of service jurisprudence. 
Respondent No.I served as science teacher in the Education Department 
of the State Government and thereafter joined as Circle Organizer on 
deputation in the Special Service Bureau Department under the Union oflndia. F 
Later, he was absorbed in the same post The Borrowing Department issued 
a tentative seniority list wherein his seniority was indicated with effect from 
the date of his absorption in the Department. He made representations 
claiming seniority with effect from the date of joining the servke in the 
Department on deputation. Representations were rejected by the authorities. 
Aggrieved, incumbent successfully challenged the same before the CAT. Hence G 
the present appeal by the Union of India. 
It was contended for the Union oflndia that the employee was entitled to 
seniority only from the date of his absorption in the Department; and that 
since the employee was not holding an equivalent post in the parent office, H 
677 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A benefit"of past regular service for the purpose of seniority should not be given. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, respondent No.I was holding the post of 
Science teacher on regular basis. The grade of the said post was revised to 
B Rs. 620-1200 with effect from 1.1.1978. Thus, he was holding a post in a 
rather higher grade than the grade of post of Circle Organizer, in his parent 
department on regular basis with effect from the date the scale of pay of the 
post stood revised. It is clear from the Government's instructions issued vide 
O.M.No.9-11/95 dated December 22, 1959 that respondent No. I is entitled to 
C be assigned seniority with effect from 1.1.1978. [682-B, CJ 
1.2. It cannot be said that the word 'equivalent' in sub-clause (iv) of 
clause 7 of the O.M. should be read as 'equivalent post'. Since the relevant 
word used in the Government's instructions is 'grade' and that respondent 
No.I was holding a post in the parent department on regular basis in a grade 
D higher than the grade of the post of Circle Organizer which he held in the 
department where he was absorbed. The relevant Government instructions had 
come into force on 29th May, 1986 while the tentative seniority list was issued 
on 24th October, 1986. The revised seniority list was issued much later. Hence 
respondent No. 1 is entitled to benefit of service rendered by him on regular 
basis with effect from 1.1.1978. Respondent No.I in the connected case would 
E also be entitled to seniority with effect from 1.1.1978. (682-D, F; 683-E) 
F 
G 
Sub-inspector Roop/a/ and Anr. v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, 
Delhi and Ors., (2000) I SCC 644, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2702of1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.3.1996 of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 635/HP of 1989. 
WITH 
C.A.No. 6428 of2003. 
Kailash Vasdev, Hemant Sharma, Y.P. Mahajan, Mrs. Sushma Suri and 
P. Parmeswaran for the Appellant. 
S.K. Dholakia, R.C. Shrivastava, Balbir Singh Gupta and Triloki Nath 
H Razdan for the Respondents. 
U.0.1. v. K.S. PERMER (ARUN KUMAR, J.] 
679 
The Judgment cif the Court was delivered by 
A 
ARUN KUMAR, J. 
C.A.No.2702/1997 : 
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th March, 1996 of B 
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. 'foe original application 
was filed by respondent No. I before the tribunal challenging seniority list 
issued by the Department wherein his seniority had been fixed from the date 
of absorption in the Department. Respondent No. I was claiming seniority 
from the date he initially jo

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