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

PETITIONER: K. TRIMURTHULU & OTHERS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.V.N. MURTHY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/02/1998

BENCH: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.      The appellants  before us wh challenge the judgment and order  dated   2nd  April,   1993  passed   by  the  Central Administrative  Tribunal,   Hyderabad  Bench  were  directly recruited on  their names  being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. They  were initially appointed as Temporary casual skilled fitters  but were  subsequently  regularised  on  or after 15.583  on different dates. These appellants were also allowed to appear in the Departmental Qualifying Examination for promotion  to the posts of Highly skilled fitter Grade - II which  they passed  and were,  therefore, promoted,  some with effect  from 6.7.84  Vice Naval  Dockyard  Notification dated 22.9.84  while others  with effect  from  1.2.85  vide Notification dated 20.2.85. 2.   Both  these   Notifications  were   challenged  by  the Respondents  (Nos.  1-43)  (for  short.  ’the  respondents’) before the  Tribunal on  several grounds  including that the appellants  could   not  be   treated  as   senior  to  them particularly as  the respondents  were admitted in the Naval Dockyard  Apprentices   School,  Vishakhapatnam   and  after qualifying in  various Trade Tests, were absorbed as skilled Fitters on  different dates between 12.11.79 and 27.1.83. it was contended  that since  the respondents had been absorbed as skilled  Fitters earlier  than the  appellants, they rank senior to  them and  the Admiral Superintend, Naval Dockyard (respondent No.  44)  was  not  justified  in  treating  the appellants as  senior to  the respondents  by including  the period of  their  casual  service  as  regular  service  for purpose of seniority. 3.   Naval Dockyard  did not  dispute the  contention of the respondents that  the appellants  were promoted to the posts of Highly  skilled Fitter  Grade-II on  the basis  of  their seniority over  the respondents  by taking  into account the period of their casual service. 4.   The Tribunal,  by the  impugned judgment,  allowed  the claim of the respondents by observing as under:-      " Since  it is  not denied that the      promotion    of     the     private      respondents to  the disadvantage of

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

    the applicants  was done on account      of  seniority   conferred  on   the      private respondents taking into the      account their  casual  service,  we      quash  the   promotion  orders  dt.      22.9.84 and  20.2.85 and direct the      respondents   to    consider    the      promotion of  the applicants  (  if      not already  done) in  the light of      the conclusions  above. Thereafter,      the  seniority   in  the  promotion      cadre shall  be arranged  in such a      matter   that   it   reflects   the      discrimination  in   the  grade  of      skilled fitters  in which cadre the      Casual services  rendered is  to be      ignored.   The    application    is      disposed of  this with no orders as      to costs. 5.   A perusal  of the judgment passed by the Tribunal would indicate that  the entire  period of  casual service  of the appellants was excluded and their seniority was counted from the date  of their  regular adoption.  For this purpose, the Tribunal placed  reliance upon  the Circular  letter bearing No. 4(1)/83/D/C-IV/II dt. 19.11.83 issued by the Ministry of Defence wherein  i was  provided that  persons  employed  on continuous casual  basis would become eligible for seniority and promotion to the higher grade on the date on which their services are  regularised. It  was  also  provided  in  that Circular that  the period of continuous casual service would not be counted for seniority and promotion. Another Circular letter of  the Naval  Dockyard, which was relied upon by the Tribunal, is  the letter dated 28.8.85 in which it was again clarified that  seniority of  casual  employees  would    be reckoned from the date of their regular appointment. 6.   We  have  gone  through  both  the  Circulars  and  are satisfied that  the Tribunal  while  having  down  that  the seniority of  the appellants could be reckoned from the date of their  regular appointment  did not  commit any error and has acted  strictly in  accordance with the Circular letters issued  by  the  Ministry  of  Defence.  Since  it  was  the consistent policy of the Ministry of Defence that benefit of seniority would  be allowed  to casual  employees only  with effect from  the date on which they are appointed on regular basis and  that the  period of  casual service  would not be counted towards  seniority, the Tribunal was fully justified in recording  the findings  that the  respondent s  would be senior to  the appellants and that the Naval Dockyard was in error in treating the appellants as senior. 7.   learned counsel  of the appellants has contended before us that  the Bombay  Bench of  the Tribunal has already held that the  casual workers,  on their regularisation, would be entitled to reckon their seniority with effect from the date of their initial appointment and the entire period of casual service would  be available  to them  for being added to the length of  the service  for determining  their seniority. In order to  implement the  judgment of  the  Bombay  Bench  of Tribunal, the  Ministry of  Defence itself issued a Circular letter dated  26.6.95 in  which it  has been stated that the benefit of  casual service, rendered by the employees of the Naval Dockyard,  up to  the date  of  their  regularisation, would be available to them It is contended that this benefit has also  to be given to the appellants and, therefore, they would rank senior to the respondents. 8.   The copy  of the  judgment passe by the Bombay Bench of

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

the Tribunal had not been filed before us nor do we know the exact  issues   involved  therein.   Moreover,  the  earlier Circulars dated  19.11.83 and 28.8.85, on which reliance has been placed  by the  Tribunal in the impugned judgment, have not been  modified or cancelled by the Circular letter dated 26.6.95 which only purports to implement the judgment of the Bombay Bench  of the Tribunal. That being so, we do not find any infirmity  in the  judgment passed  by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the observation that if the benefits  of seniority,  on the basis of circular letter dated 26.6.95,  the Government  may, if  approached consider the cases of the appellants for that limited purpose.