VIJAY KUMAR SHROTRIYA versus STATE OF U.P AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 883 · Decided: 13-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI, AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

VIJAY KUMAR SHROTRIYA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 13, 1998 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND A.P. MISRA, JJ] 
B 
. .,.. 
Service law-Seniority-Employees placed from one Department to 
another-Deemed transfer-Period of service rendered in previous 
Department-Reckoning for seniority-Uttar Pradesh G.O. No. 822 EBRI c 
XXIII-PWD dated 19. 10.1968-0.M No. 5060/23-IRRl-l/42/WP/80 dated 
12th July 1982-Applicability of 
State of U.P.-PWD and Irrigation Department-Appellant appointment 
as Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Department on ad hoc basis-Appeared 
in combined test held for Irrigation and Public Works Department-His name D 
. ..:. 
approved for the post of Assistant Engineer in PWD-But he was not relieved 
~ 
from Irrigation Department due to his requirement in that Department-
Again he was selected and appointed as Assistant Engineer in PWD-While 
working in P. WD. he was promoted as Executive Engineer by accepting his 
earlier service in Irrigation Department-However he was not considered for 
promotion as Superintendent Engineer because his service Irrigation E 
Department was not taken into account-Pursuant to direction given by 
Tribunal Government decided to take into account his period of service in 
Irrigation Department but later retracted-Writ preferred by appellant 
dismissed by High Court-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held the appellant 
would be treated to have been borne in service on the date when he was F 
t" 
appointed first through combined selection examination and not 
,, 
subsequently-It would be unjust, to disallow the claim of the appellant 
inspite of he being selected and appointed to the P.WD. through 1962 
Commission Selection when on no fault of his if he was not being permitted 
to join in the Public Works Department-His entire length of service be 
reckoned in computing seniority. 
G 
' 
Gokaran Singh v. State of U.P., (W.P. No. 4396 of 1990), decided by 
_,f 
Allahabad High Court; 
P.D. Aggarawa/ & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 622, held 
applicable. 
H 
883 
884 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] l S.C.R. 
A 
Shri Anand Chandra Das v. State of Orissa & Ors. JT(l988) 1 SC 98; 
K. Madhavan & Anr. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc., (1988) 1 SCR 421 
and Abdul Kher v. Chief Justice, Allahabad, (1971) SLR 25, referred to. 
;___
CIVIL APPELLATE IDRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12086of1996. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2. 5. 94 of the Allahabad High Court 
in W.P. No. 7514of1993. 
'I" 
Rakesh Diwedi, Chatanya Siddarth and R.C. Verma for the Appellant. 
Ms. Alka Aggarwal, R.K. Singh and R.B. Mishra for the Respondents. 
c 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The short question raised is, whether the appellant is entitled to the 
benefit of his earlier service rendered in the Irrigation Department for his 
promotion and seniority in the Public Works Department (PWD). The 
D foundation for tl1e impugned order dated 19th August, 1993, is the decision 
of the High Court in Gokaran Singh v. State of U.P., (Writ Petition No, 4396 
of 1990), in which the appellant, admittedly, was not a party wherein it was 
held that the benefit for the said earlier period was not admissible. 
E 
On 25th August, 1962, the appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis as 
Assistant Engineer in the irrigation Department. In September, 1962, interview 
was held in tl1e combined services of Uttar Pradesh for the posts of Assistant 
Engineers in ·Public Works Department (PWD) Irrigation Department by the 
U.P. Public Service Conunission. The appellant was recommended at SI. No.55. 
In view of this, he was allotted the Public Works Department. On 29th July, 
F 1963, the Public Works Department approved the appellant's appointment and 
indicated the appellant's merit at SI. No. 21. On 8th August, 1963, the Chief 
\. 
Engineer, PWD, issued letter of his appointment. However, the appellant was 
not relieved by the Irrigation Department, inspite of his consent earlier to join 
PWD through a letter dated 10th May, 1963. So, he continued to work in the 
G 
Irrigation Department. In 1965, another competitive examination was held by 
the said Commission for substantive permanent vacancies in the Public Works 
Department. On 13th September, 1967, the appellant was again selected and 
' 
appointed through letter dated 23rd November, 1967. On !st January, 1968, the 
-\.. 
appellant joined the post of Assistant Engineer in PWD. Subsequently, on 
10th October, 1968, appellant's case is, that he was transferre

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