1996 JTR(SC) 11
1996 AIR(SC) 2867 ; 1996 32 ATC 829 ; 1996 72 FLR 537 ; 1996 1 JT 250 ; 1997 1 LLJ 54 ; 1996 1 LLN 449 ; 1996 1 PLJR(SC) 104 ; 1996 1 Scale 306 ; 1996 2 SCC 20 ; 1996 SCC(L&S) 397 ; 1996 1 SCJ 401 ; 1996 1 SCR 20 ; 1996 2 SCT 509 ; 1996 1 SLR 649 ; 1996 1 UJ 228 ; 1996 3 UPLBEC 1682 ; 1996 KHC 669 ; 1996 1 Supreme 424
1996(1) Supreme 424
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ
Dr. (Capt.) Akhouri Ramesh Chandra Sinha etc. -Appellants
versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1578 of 1996 and Civil Appeal No. 1579 of 1996
Decided on 2-1-1996
IMPORTANT POINT
The appellant is senior to the respondent - employees in this case High Court was not right and hence its order is set aside.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
(A) Relevant circular and policy provisions regarding temporary officers, probationary confirmation, and seniority determination for government medical officers.
Facts of the case:
Appellant was appointed temporarily in March 1966, served in the Army during national emergency, and confirmed permanently on September 6, 1966. Respondents were initially appointed temporarily on September 29, 1964, and confirmed permanently on July 15, 1974. The question was whether the appellant's seniority should date from September 6, 1966, making him senior to the respondents.
Findings of Court:
The circular dated September 20, 1965, provides that officers on probation after two years of Army service are confirmed with seniority from their joining date in the Army. The appellant, having completed probation and been regularly appointed, is deemed appointed permanently from September 6, 1966. Respondents' regular service for seniority begins only from their confirmation date, July 15, 1974.
Issues:
Whether the appellant is entitled to seniority from September 6, 166, and whether this entitles him to be senior to respondents appointed earlier in a temporary capacity.
Ratio Decidendi:
Temporary officers who volunteer for Army service and complete probation are confirmed with seniority from their Army joining date. Regular appointment follows confirmation, and seniority for such officers dates from the original temporary appointment, not the confirmation date.
Result:
The appeals are allowed. The appellant is senior to the respondents from September 6, 1966, and is entitled to consequential benefits except back wages.
(A) Relevant circular and policy provisions regarding temporary officers, probationary confirmation, and seniority determination for government medical officers.
Facts of the case:
Appellant was appointed temporarily in March 1966, served in the Army during national emergency, and confirmed permanently on September 6, 1966. Respondents were initially appointed temporarily on September 29, 1964, and confirmed permanently on July 15, 1974. The question was whether the appellant's seniority should date from September 6, 1966, making him senior to the respondents.
Findings of Court:
The circular dated September 20, 1965, provides that officers on probation after two years of Army service are confirmed with seniority from their joining date in the Army. The appellant, having completed probation and been regularly appointed, is deemed appointed permanently from September 6, 1966. Respondents' regular service for seniority begins only from their confirmation date, July 15, 1974.
Issues:
Whether the appellant is entitled to seniority from September 6, 166, and whether this entitles him to be senior to respondents appointed earlier in a temporary capacity.
Ratio Decidendi:
Temporary officers who volunteer for Army service and complete probation are confirmed with seniority from their Army joining date. Regular appointment follows confirmation, and seniority for such officers dates from the original temporary appointment, not the confirmation date.
Result:
The appeals are allowed. The appellant is senior to the respondents from September 6, 1966, and is entitled to consequential benefits except back wages.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. We have heard the counsel on both sides. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgments of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC Nos. 7049/93 and 1801/90 made respectively on August 19, 1994 and December 6, 1994. The question is vexed inter se seniority of the appellant and the respondent - employees in these cases. The appellant was admittedly appointed on temporary basis in March 1966 and thereafter he was drafted as a Commissioned Officer and served in the Army in defence of the country in national emergency. After discharge from the Army, he was appointed on regular basis on September 6, 1966. The respondent-employees came to be appointed initially on September 29, 1964 on temporary basis and were then appointed on regular basis as Civil Assistant Surgeon w.e.f. July 15, 1974. The question is whether the appellant is entitled to his seniority w.e.f. September 6, 1966 and thereby would become senior to the respondent-employees though they were initially appointed on temporary basis w.e.f. September 29, 1964. Circular dated September 20, 1965 issued by the Government with regard to the entitlement of the Army Officers is found in Annexure VI. The relevant part reads thus :
"Besides the facilities in the Army, all temporary officers are allowed lien in service in accordance with Govt. order No. 7892(B) dated 10.12.62. It has further been accepted by Government that of the existing permanent vacancies would be reserved for the temporary assistant surgeons who volunteers to join the Army and they would be on probation with effect from the date on which they join the Army service and on completion of two years of satisfactory service, they will be confirmed in the State Medical Service."
3. As a consequence of the above circular, on appointment to the post and on completion of the probation for a period of two years, the candidate would be confirmed in the cadre as Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Bihar State Medical Service. It is settled law that on completion of the satisfactory probation, his confirmation would date back to the date of his initial appointment. Admittedly, he was regularly appointed on September 6, 1966. Consequently, he was regularly appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon w.e.f. September 6, 1966.
4. It is true that the respondent-employees came to be appointed pursuant to the recommendations dated April 17, 1964 made by the Bihar State Public Service Commission and were appointed on September 29, 1964. But all the appointments are only to temporary posts though they were selected by the Bihar Public Service Commission on regular basis. They were admittedly confirmed w.e.f. July 15, 1974. Under these circumstances, the regular service for the purpose of seniority as regards the respondents would commence only from July 15, 1974, of course, for other benefits, their appointments would date back to the date of their initial temporary appointment. Consequently, the appellant becomes senior to them. Resultantly, he is entitled to all the consequential benefits except back wages.
5. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******