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

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA KUNJ BIHARI SHARMA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TARA CHAND SHARMA & ORS.  UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/08/1998

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                                    3950-3953                  CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 1998       -----------------------------------------------        (Arising out of SLP(c) Nos. 1113-1116 OF 1996)                           JUDGMENT PATTANAIK, J.      Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.      The inter  se seniority between respondents nos. 1 to 4 who had  been promoted  to the  post of Computors on regular basis on  20.8.90 and  10.10.90 and the ad hoc appointees to the said posts respondent nos. 5 to 37 herein whose services were regularised  on 14.3.1991  is the  subject  matter  for consideration in  these  appeals.  It  transpires  from  the available materials on record that certain posts having been created  for   1981  Census   in  the   cadre  of  Computors respondents nos.  5 to 37 were appointed against those posts but even  after the  Census operation  was over  those posts continued and  respondents nos. 5 to 37 were also continued. Ultimately  the   Registrar  General   of  India  after  due consultation with  the Department  of Personnel and Training regularised those  appointees by  letter dated  12th  March, 1991, and  it was  also indicated  that  the  past  services rendered by  them before regularisation would also count for their seniority  as well as eligibility for promotion to the higher grad. Respondents nos. 1 to 4, on the other hand, had been promoted  as Computors  on regular  basis  between  the period 20th  August, 1990  to 10th  October, 1990.  When the seniority list  was drawn up on 12th April, 1993 respondents nos. 5  to 37 having been placed above respondents nos. 1 to 4 a  representation was  made by the said respondents nos. 1 to  4.   The  representation   having  been   rejected  they approached the  Central Administrative Tribunal at Jaipur by filling OA  Nos. 93,  121, 122 and 172 of 1994. The Tribunal by the  impugned judgment  being of the view that the ad hoc appointees are  not entitled to get their services as ad hoc for  the   purpose  of  counting  the  seniority  since  the appointment itself  was dehors  the rules  allowed these OAs and held  that respondent  nos. 1  to  4  to  be  senior  to respondents nos. 5 to 37 in the cadre of Computor. It may by

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

noticed at this stage that the promotion of respondents nos. 1 to  4 to  the post  of Computor  was not  on a substantive basis and  after expiry  of the  sanction of  the  posts  of Computor created  for 1991  census on  account of  posts  of Computor  created   for  1991   census  on  account  of  non availability of  posts of Computor in the cadre, respondents nos. 1  to 4  were reverted. The said order of reversion was assailed before  the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal had  annulled  the  order  of  reversion.  But  the aforesaid order of the Tribunal being assailed in this Court by the  Union of  India in  C.A. Nos.  9572-75  of  1995  by judgment dated  19th October,  1995 this  Court came to hold that the  fact of abolition of posts having been established and  the   respondents  nos.  1  to  4  herein  having  been temporarily  promoted   to  those  posts,  which  have  been abolished,  they   cannot  raise   any  objection   for  the consequential reversal  order. The order of the Tribunal was accordingly set  aside and  the appeal of the Union of India was allowed  thereby. The  order of reversion of respondents nos. 1  to 4  herein from  the posts  of Computor  to  their substantive  post   was  approved   by  this  Court.  Though opportunity has  been given  to said respondents nos. 1 to 4 to indicate  whether they  are still  continuing as Computor but no such assertion has been made. Though Mr. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents nos. 1 to 4 contended that   would be a matter which would ultimately be decided only  when the  seniority matter is finalised we are unable to  accept this  contention since  we find  that  the respondents  nos.  1  to  4  are  no  longer  continuing  as Computors, their  order of  reversion having been up held by this Court,  as already  referred  to,  and  therefore,  the question  of  determining  their  inter  se  seniority  with respondent nos.  5 to  37 in the cadre of Computor would not arise.      In the  aforesaid premises,  it is not necessary for us to examine  the larger  question as  to whether the order of Registrar General directing that the services of respondents nos. 5 to 37 even prior to regularisation can be counted for the purpose of their seniority in the cadre. On the admitted position, therefore,  while the respondents nos. 5 to 37 are still continuing  as Computor  their  services  having  been regularised  by   the  order   of   Registrar   General   in consultation with  the Department  of Personnel  respondents nos. 1  to 4  have been  reverted from  the said  cadre  and necessarily therefore,  respondents nos.  5 to  37 would  be held to  be senior  in the  cadre of Computors. The impugned judgment of  the Tribunal  in the aforesaid OAs is set aside and the  appeals of  the Union  of India are allowed and the OAs stand dismissed.      The appeals  arising out SLP@Nos. 1113-1116 of 1996 for the reasons  already indicated  are also allowed. But in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.