B. Ram Mohan & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 10587 of 1995
Petitioner: B. Ram Mohan & Anr.
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 10587 of 1995
Judges: G. B. PATTANAIK & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 25, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Railway Establishment Manual
Paragraphs 321, 302 – Inter se seniority – Determination of – Post of Junior Planner – Appellants appointed as welders in 1976- Respondent as springsmith appointed in 1980 – However, respondent appointed as Junior planner in 1981 where as appellants appointed in 1982 – Posts of welder and springsmith in the same grade. Held that inter se seniority has to be determined in accordance with Paragraph 321 and total length of service in equivalent grade has to be the determining factor. Appellants to rank senior. Appeal allowed. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) dated 10th May, 1990 allowing Original Application No. 375/88. One V. Arumugan had filed the application before the Tribunal claiming seniority over the two appellants in this appeal inter alia on the ground that he was appointed as a Junior Planner earlier on 4.2.1981 whereas the two appellants herein were appointed as Junior Planner on 9.11.1981 and 17.01. 1982. The Tribunal taking into account the date of continuous service in the rank of Junior Planner allowed the application and held Arumugan to be senior to the present two appellants. It is against this order the present appeal has been preferred.
2. The two appellants were earlier in the trade of welder whereas Arumugan was in the trade of springsmith. The post of welder and springsmith carry the same scale of pay. It is also undisputed that the two appellants were appointed as welders on 04.03.1976 whereas Arumugan was appointed as Springsmith w.e.f. 18.07.1980. The question for consideration therefore is when the people from different trade are brought into and appointments are made in a grade or post, as in the present case Junior Planner, what would be the principle for determination of their inter se seniority?
3. Mr. Venkataramani, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the inter se seniority in such cases will have to be governed by the criteria indicated in Railway Establishment Manual para 321. The said para 321 is quoted hereinbelow in extenso:
4. “When a post (selection as well as non-selection) is filled by considering staff of different seniority units, the total length of continuous service in the same or equivalent grade held by the employees shall be the determining factor for assigning inter-se seniority irrespective of the date of confirmation of an employee with lesser length of continuous service. This is subject to the proviso that only non-fortutious service should be taken into account for this purpose,”
5. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent who was the applicant before the Tribunal, on the other hand, contended that the Railway Establishment Manual para 302 would govern the case. Para 302 unequivocally indicates that unless otherwise indicated, the continuous length of service in the grade should be the determining factor. Thus, the crux of the matter is whether the provisions contained in para 321 can be held to be otherwise indicated. On the admitted position that the post of Junior Planner is being filled up by considering staff of different seniority units, in our considered opinion, the inter se seniority in the cadre of Junior Planner has to be determined in accordance with para 321. Necessarily, therefore the total length of service in the equivalent grade held by the employees would be the determining factor. Since the two appellants were holding the post of welder, since 04,03.1976 and the contesting respondent was holding the post of springsmith w.e.f. 18.07.1980 and the posts of welder and springsmith are in the same grade, the two appellants must be held to be senior to the contesting respondent. The Tribunal therefore committed error in declaring Arumugan senior to the appellants, was therefore set aside the impugned order of Tribunal and allow this Appeal.
1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) dated 10th May, 1990 allowing Original Application No. 375/88. One V. Arumugan had filed the application before the Tribunal claiming seniority over the two appellants in this appeal inter alia on the ground that he was appointed as a Junior Planner earlier on 4.2.1981 whereas the two appellants herein were appointed as Junior Planner on 9.11.1981 and 17.01. 1982. The Tribunal taking into account the date of continuous service in the rank of Junior Planner allowed the application and held Arumugan to be senior to the present two appellants. It is against this order the present appeal has been preferred.
2. The two appellants were earlier in the trade of welder whereas Arumugan was in the trade of springsmith. The post of welder and springsmith carry the same scale of pay. It is also undisputed that the two appellants were appointed as welders on 04.03.1976 whereas Arumugan was appointed as Springsmith w.e.f. 18.07.1980. The question for consideration therefore is when the people from different trade are brought into and appointments are made in a grade or post, as in the present case Junior Planner, what would be the principle for determination of their inter se seniority?
3. Mr. Venkataramani, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the inter se seniority in such cases will have to be governed by the criteria indicated in Railway Establishment Manual para 321. The said para 321 is quoted hereinbelow in extenso:
4. “When a post (selection as well as non-selection) is filled by considering staff of different seniority units, the total length of continuous service in the same or equivalent grade held by the employees shall be the determining factor for assigning inter-se seniority irrespective of the date of confirmation of an employee with lesser length of continuous service. This is subject to the proviso that only non-fortutious service should be taken into account for this purpose,”
5. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent who was the applicant before the Tribunal, on the other hand, contended that the Railway Establishment Manual para 302 would govern the case. Para 302 unequivocally indicates that unless otherwise indicated, the continuous length of service in the grade should be the determining factor. Thus, the crux of the matter is whether the provisions contained in para 321 can be held to be otherwise indicated. On the admitted position that the post of Junior Planner is being filled up by considering staff of different seniority units, in our considered opinion, the inter se seniority in the cadre of Junior Planner has to be determined in accordance with para 321. Necessarily, therefore the total length of service in the equivalent grade held by the employees would be the determining factor. Since the two appellants were holding the post of welder, since 04,03.1976 and the contesting respondent was holding the post of springsmith w.e.f. 18.07.1980 and the posts of welder and springsmith are in the same grade, the two appellants must be held to be senior to the contesting respondent. The Tribunal therefore committed error in declaring Arumugan senior to the appellants, was therefore set aside the impugned order of Tribunal and allow this Appeal.
