http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/12/1995

BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 521        1995 SCALE  (7)340

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties.  The  short question which  arises for  consideration is  whether or not the Central Administrative Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated June  2,  1994  passed  in  O.A.No.1507  of  1993  has correctly  decided   the  question   of  seniority   of  the respondent Sri  G.Gopalkrishnan Pillai.  It is  an  admitted case that  the said Sri pillai was given ad hoc appointments to the  post of  Storekeeper at  Goa and  while he  had been continuing in  such ad  hoc appointments, he was regularised in the  post of  Storekeeper. The Naval Department has given appropriate fitment  in the  scale of  a Storekeeper  to Sri Pillai after  giving credit  for the officiation in the said post but so far as the seniority to the cadre of Storekeeper is concerned,  the seniority  has been  given only  from the date when he was regularised in the post of Storekeeper. Sri Pillai felt aggrieved for not getting seniority by computing the period  spent  on  ad  hoc  service  as  a  Storekeeper. Claiming seniority  by reckoning  ad hoc  service, he made a representation to the Naval Department which was rejected.      Thereafter, the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  was moved by the respondent contending inter alia that as he had been officiating  on ad hoc basis in the post of Storekeeper continuously till he was selected and regularly appointed to the post  of Storekeeper,  the entire  period  of  continues officiation would  ensure to  his benefit for the purpose of fixing  seniority   in  the   cadre  of   Storekeeper.  Such contention has  been accepted  by the Central Administrative Tribunal by  the impugned  order. It  has been directed that Sri  Pillai  should  be  given  seniority  to  the  post  of Storekeeper from the date he started officiating in the said post  and  all  consequential  benefits  flowing  from  such seniority should also be given to him.      The learned  senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that ad hoc appointments to the said

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

post of  Storekeeper had  been given  to the  respondent  by clearly indicating  in the orders of ad hoc appointment that such appointment  on ad hoc basis would not confer any right to claim seniority in the said post. That apart, law is well settled that  in the absence of any specific rule of service by which a person holding an ad hoc post will be entitled to get seniority to the said post if he is later on selected on a regular  basis to  the post.  The holder of ad hoc post is not entitled  to claim  seniority on  the basis  of  ad  hoc service. In  support of  such contention  reliance has  been made to  a decision  of this  Court in Union of India & anr. Vs. S.K.  Sharma (1992 (2) SCC 728). It has been held in the said decision  that ad  hoc service  cannot be  counted  for determining seniority.  In the  said decision,  the  earlier decision of  the Constitution  Bench of this Court in Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officers Association Vs. State of Maharashtra  and others  (1990 (2) SCC 715) has also been referred to and relied on.      The learned  counsel for  the respondent engaged by the Supreme Court  Legal Aid  Committee, has, however, submitted that it is an admitted position in this case that Sri Pillai has been  regularly selected  to the post of Storekeeper and appointed  to   such  post.  Prior  to  such  selection  and appointment to the post of Storekeeper on regular basis. Sri Pillai  had   continuously  officiated   in  the   post   of Storekeeper on  the basis  of ad  hoc appointments  given to him. If  an employee  is ultimately  selected on  a  regular basis to  a post  in which  he had  continuously officiated, then even  if such employee had held the post only on ad hoc basis, he  will be entitled to claim seniority from the date of ad  hoc appointment.  In support  of such contention, the learned counsel  has relied  on a  decision of this Court in Union of  India Vs. Ansusekhar Guin and others (1989 (1) SCC 283). It, however, appears to us that in the said case, this Court has  only reiterated the principle that if an employee had been  appointed on  ad hoc  or temporary basis exceeding the quite  fixed for such appointment such employee would be entitled to  get the  credit of  continuous  officiation  in fixing  seniority   provided  such   ad  hoc   or  temporary appointment had  been made  by a  regularly constituted body for holding the selection of the candidates to be appointed. In the  instant case,  the respondent  Sri  Pillai  was  not selected by  a  regularly  constituted  selection  body  for giving ad  hoc appointments  to the  post of the Storekeeper and on  such selection  he had  continued in  ad hoc service till regular  appointment to  such post  was  made.  On  the contrary, the  case of  Sri Pillai is that while he had been holding ad  hoc posts, he got selected on a regular basis to the said  post of Storekeeper. Hence, the decision relied on by the  learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. It also appears to us  that the  Tribunal in  passing the impugned order has relied on  condition ‘B’  as referred  to in the decision of the  Constitution   Bench  in   Direct  Recruits   Class  II Engineering Officers’  Association (supra) in support of the impugned order. In our view, the principle enunciated in the said case  is not  applicable in  the  facts  of  this  case because the  initial appointment  of Sri Pillai by way of ad hoc arrangement,  was not  made by  following the  procedure laid down  by the Rules as referred to in Condition-B in the said decision. Hence, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. We,  therefore, allow  this appeal  and set aside the impugned order without however any order as to costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3