1998 (10) TMI 529 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Seniority determination for Assistant Engineers.
2. Impact of delay in approval by the State Government and Commission.
3. Reopening of issues by the High Court without referring to a larger bench.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Seniority Determination for Assistant Engineers:
The core issue revolves around whether the appellants are entitled to seniority from the date they began officiating as Assistant Engineers or only from the date they were approved by the Commission. The appellants were initially appointed on an ad hoc basis and later confirmed by the Commission. The High Court quashed the seniority list which gave them seniority from the date of their ad hoc appointment, citing it was against the decision in P.D. Aggarwal. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Service Rules, particularly Rule 23(d) and its provisos, allow for seniority to be counted from the date of substantive appointment, which can include backdated appointments. The Court concluded that the seniority list prepared in 1995, following the decisions in D.N. Saksena and V.K. Yadav, was in accordance with the Rules and should not be disturbed.

2. Impact of Delay in Approval by the State Government and Commission:
The appellants argued that any delay in their approval by the Commission should not deprive them of seniority benefits, as they were qualified at the time of their initial ad hoc appointment. The Supreme Court chose not to address this issue in detail, stating that the High Court had only dealt with the general principle of seniority and not individual grievances. The Court left this question open for appropriate forums to address specific grievances against the seniority list.

3. Reopening of Issues by the High Court without Referring to a Larger Bench:
The appellants questioned whether the High Court was right in reopening issues previously decided by three different Division Benches without referring the matter to a larger bench. The Supreme Court decided not to address this procedural query, as it would only result in a remand to the High Court, prolonging the dispute. Instead, the Supreme Court chose to resolve the matter on its merits to avoid further delays.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the seniority list of 1995, prepared based on the decisions in D.N. Saksena and V.K. Yadav, was in accordance with the relevant Service Rules and should not be interfered with. The Court emphasized that the promotees' service in an officiating capacity should be counted towards their seniority. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the writ petition filed by the respondents was dismissed. The Court also criticized the State Government for its inconsistent stance and failure to appeal the High Court's decision, highlighting the need for the government to avoid causing prolonged litigation among its employees.