http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHRI NARAYAN YESHWANT GORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/04/1995

BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (4) 470        1995 SCALE  (3)611

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:           O R D E R      This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the petition filed by the  appellant for granting and extending to him the same benefits as were granted to the persons similarly situate in view of  the decision given by this Court in Narender Chadha & Ors.  vs. Union  of India  & Ors. reported in 1986 (1) SCR 211.      The brief  facts that are necessary to be mentioned are that   the   appellant   joined   National   Sample   Survey Organisation  as  Inspector  on  25th  July,  1950.  He  was promoted as Scrutiny Inspector on 4th November, 1954. He was further appointed  as Assistant  Superintendent in  1955. On 6th March,  1961, he  came  to  be  deputed  to  the  Census Department at  Nagpur and  worked there from 6th March, 1961 to 21st  October, 1969  as a Tabulation Officer. Then he was granted proforma  promotion in  his parent  department.  The post  of   Tabulator  was   subsequently   redesignated   as Superintendent. The  appellant while  working in  the Census Department was  promoted as  Assistant  Director  of  Census operation w.e.f.  21st October, 1969 and continued till 31st December, 1974.  While he was working there a question arose about his  consideration in the present department. A letter dated 21st  January, 1970  which has  been extracted  by the Tribunal indicates that department considered that since the appellant was in the Census Department and there were short- term vacancies  only, it was not necessary to offer the post to the  appellant  or  to  ask  him  to  come  back  to  the department. In  these circumstances,  he continued in Census Department. He could not be given even proforma promotion as there  was  no  regular  vacancy.  But  his  appointment  as Assistant Director  in the  Census Department  was with  the concurrence of  the Census Department, parent Department and the Union  Public Service  Commission. In 1975, he came back to his  parent Department  and was  appointed  as  Assistant Director on  11.4.1975 on  adhoc  basis.  While  he  was  on

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

deputation in  the Census  Department his  juniors had  also been promoted  as adhoc  in his  parent Department.  Some of them were  appointed in  1969. On  11th February,  1986  the decision in  Narender Chadha  (supra) was  rendered by  this Court.  It  was  held  that  all  those  officers  who  were appointed as  Assistant Directors in the Organisation should be deemed to have been appointed substantively from the date of their adhoc appointment. In consequence of this decision, those juniors  who had  been appointed on adhoc basis in the parent Department  between  1969-75  became  senior  to  the appellant. Reason  for it was that the decision has confined the applicability  of benefit to only those who were working in the  Department. Since  the appellant  was working in the Census Department  and he  was appointed adhoc in the parent Department from  1975, he  was appointed  substantively from that date  only. The  appellant, therefore, was left with no option except  to approach  the Tribunal  which has recorded every finding  in favour  of the appellant but expressed its inability to  grant any relief as in view of the decision of this Court  he could not be deemed to be ad hoc appointee in the Department.      The facts  narrated above  clearly  indicate  that  the appellant was  similarly situated  along with those who were granted benefit by this Court. May be, he was working in the Census  Department.   But  since  the  post  in  the  Census Department and  in the parent Department was ad hoc post and the Department itself considered that his continuance in the Census Department  did not affect him and, therefore, he was not offered  the post  of Assistant  Director in  the parent Department, he could not be prejudiced. The benefit given in Narender Chadha  (supra), therefore,  should be  extended to the appellant  and he  too should  be deemed  to  have  been working as  Assistant Director  on adhoc basis in the parent Department in  Grade IV  since October,  1969. He  should be deemed to  have been  confirmed from the date his junior was confirmed.      We further  find that Sri Chaurasia, one of the juniors of the  appellant was  promoted as  ad hoc on 22nd May, 1986 after the  decision was  given by this Court calculating his seniority from  1969 and  he was  given promotion in 1986 as Deputy Director  with  effect  from  17.3.1983.  It  is  not disputed that  the post  of Deputy Director is a promotional post. It  is not  a selection  post. Since the appellant was senior to Shri Chaurasia who was promoted as Deputy Director from 1983,  the appellant  too shall  be deemed to have been promoted as Deputy Director from 17.3.83.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  order of  the Tribunal is  set aside.  The claim petition of the appellant succeeds in the manner indicated above.      We are  informed that  the appellant  has  retired.  He shall be  entitled to  all the benefits which flow from this order. There shall be no order as to costs.