Director General Civil Aviation Vs. Manvirsingh (Dead) Thr. LR. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2522/1997
With
CA 2523/1997
With
CA 2523/1997
Petitioner: Director General Civil Aviation
Respondent: Manvirsingh (Dead) Thr. LR. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2522/1997
With
CA 2523/1997
With
CA 2523/1997
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jun 09, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 14, 16, 226 – Seniority – Fixation – Aerodrome officer – By-passing set aside with direction to consider ad-hoc service and ad-hoc appointment if made on considering his seniority and merits – On remand, seniority in cadre fixed – However, case not examined on merits. Held that the part of order, reckoning seniority from particular date is set aside and directions given to consider and fix the date after notice to those who may be affected. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. On an earlier occasion when this matter reached this Court as to whether the ~4~ Manvirsingh (deceased respondent in the present appeal) (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) should be considered for promotion to the cadre of aerodrome officer, his case having not been considered on the ground that he did not have the requisite experience of three years in the grade, was set aside by this Court by stating that the period of ad hoc service could not be ignored and had to be taken into consideration for the determination of experience. This Court ultimately disposed of the matter by directing the High Court to consider whether the ad hoc appointment had been made considering the seniority in service as well as merit.
2. When the matter went back to the High Court, the tribunal having come into existence, the matter stood transferred to the central administrative tribunal. The central administrative tribunal by an order made on 15.9.1994 held that the respondent should be deemed to have been promoted as aerodrom officer with effect from 14.1.1977 and directed to work out the consequential benefits that would flow therefrom.
3. The grievances of the appellant against the order made by the tribunal is that the tribunal did not consider the two elements that were adverted to by this court, namely, seniority as well as merit. Although a direction was given by this Court that his ad hoc service should be taken into consideration for purpose of seniority, it was also indicated that his case should be examined on merit. That exercise had not been done at all and in those circumstances it was pointed out that the benefit from 14.1.1977 could not have been given to the respondent. Now it is brought to our notice that the respondent had already been promoted as an aerodrome officer with effect from 29.12.1980. All that needs to be done is to fix as from which date he was suitable to be appointed on that post and to accord an appropriate ranking in the seniority list. That exercise could be done only after hearing the legal representatives of the respondent and others who may be affected by such a course of action. Therefore, that part of the order by which the High Court directed to reckon his seniority from 14.1.1977 is set aside and it is made clear that the appellant shall properly exercise its mind and fix his date of seniority in the cadre of aerodrome officers after due notice to all the parties concerned. The appeal shall stand disposed of accordingly.
CA 2523/1997
4. As this matter is against the order on review made in T.A. No. 26/1992, this appeal becomes unnecessary in view of the order passed in C.A. No. 2523/1997. It is disposed of as unnecessary.
1. On an earlier occasion when this matter reached this Court as to whether the ~4~ Manvirsingh (deceased respondent in the present appeal) (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) should be considered for promotion to the cadre of aerodrome officer, his case having not been considered on the ground that he did not have the requisite experience of three years in the grade, was set aside by this Court by stating that the period of ad hoc service could not be ignored and had to be taken into consideration for the determination of experience. This Court ultimately disposed of the matter by directing the High Court to consider whether the ad hoc appointment had been made considering the seniority in service as well as merit.
2. When the matter went back to the High Court, the tribunal having come into existence, the matter stood transferred to the central administrative tribunal. The central administrative tribunal by an order made on 15.9.1994 held that the respondent should be deemed to have been promoted as aerodrom officer with effect from 14.1.1977 and directed to work out the consequential benefits that would flow therefrom.
3. The grievances of the appellant against the order made by the tribunal is that the tribunal did not consider the two elements that were adverted to by this court, namely, seniority as well as merit. Although a direction was given by this Court that his ad hoc service should be taken into consideration for purpose of seniority, it was also indicated that his case should be examined on merit. That exercise had not been done at all and in those circumstances it was pointed out that the benefit from 14.1.1977 could not have been given to the respondent. Now it is brought to our notice that the respondent had already been promoted as an aerodrome officer with effect from 29.12.1980. All that needs to be done is to fix as from which date he was suitable to be appointed on that post and to accord an appropriate ranking in the seniority list. That exercise could be done only after hearing the legal representatives of the respondent and others who may be affected by such a course of action. Therefore, that part of the order by which the High Court directed to reckon his seniority from 14.1.1977 is set aside and it is made clear that the appellant shall properly exercise its mind and fix his date of seniority in the cadre of aerodrome officers after due notice to all the parties concerned. The appeal shall stand disposed of accordingly.
CA 2523/1997
4. As this matter is against the order on review made in T.A. No. 26/1992, this appeal becomes unnecessary in view of the order passed in C.A. No. 2523/1997. It is disposed of as unnecessary.
