R. Shanti Charan Vs. T. Koteswara Rao & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 467/1999
Petitioner: R. Shanti Charan
Respondent: T. Koteswara Rao & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 467/1999
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 04, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Central Labour (Service) Rules, 1987
Rule 9 – Inter se seniority – Labour Officer and Assistant Wel-fare Commissioner – Former recruited under Rules of 1951 and latter under Rules of 1958 – Both in same grade – Labour Officer appointed after 31.12.72 and continuing as Assistant Labour Commissioner at the time of enforcement of Rules of 1987 and two posts clubbed together – If services rendered as Labour Officer could be counted as continuous service in the grade. Held that since service as Labour Officer was in same grade, continuous service as Labour Officer would be counted as determining factor of seniority.
Held:
Since admittedly Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner were in the same grade, there is no rhyme and reason not to count the services rendered as Labour Officer prior to the incumbent being appointed as Assistant Welfare Commissioner for determining his seniority in the cadre. The conclusion of the Tribunal, there-fore, is contrary to the plain meaning of the Rule 9(1) of the Recruitment Rule, which governs the question of seniority. The continuous length of service in the grade is the deter-mining factor for the purpose of reckoning seniority in the cadre. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench dealing with the ques-tion of inter se seniority between the Labour Officer and Assis-tant Welfare Commissioner. By a notification dated 3rd February 1987, a set of rules were framed in exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution called the Central Labour (Service) Rules 1987. Section 2(c) of the said Rule de-fines the “departmental candidates” to mean all the existing officers holding Group ‘A’ posts recruited under the different Rules enumerated therein. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) were being recruited under the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Recruitment Rules,1958, whereas Labour Officers were being recruited under the Labour Officers (Central Pool) Recruit-ment and Conditions of Service Rules 1951. Rule 2(g) defines “Grade” to mean a Grade specified in Column 2 of Schedule I. Schedule I, Item 5 indicates Grade V, which includes the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) as well as the Labour Officer and Assistant Welfare Commissioner. It is thus apparent that the post of Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner were in the same grade. Rule 9 of the aforesaid Recruitment Rules deals with the seniority.
Seniority:-
(1) “The inter se seniority of the officers appointed to the various Grades mentioned in Schedule 1 at the initial constitu-tion stage of the Service under Rule 6, shall be determined according to the length of regular continuous service in the Grade subject to maintenance in the respective Grades of inter se seniority of officers recruited under the Rules men-tioned in Clause (c) of Rule 2.”
2. The real question that arises for consideration is whether a person who had been appointed as a Labour Officer subsequent to 31.12.1972, and then had been appointed as Assistant Labour Commissioner, and was continuing as such Assistant Labour Commis-sioner on the date the aforesaid recruitment Rules came into -force, and two posts were clubbed together, the services rendered by such employee as Labour Officer could be counted as continuous length of service in the grade in terms of Rules 9(1) of the Recruitment Rules? Proviso to Rule 9(1) speaks of the Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner recruited prior to 31.12.1972 with which proviso we are not concerned in the present case. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment, while interpreting the Rule 9(1), has come to the conclusion that it is the continu-ous length of service as Assistant Labour Commissioner, which shall be taken into account for the purpose of seniority in terms of Rule 9(1). Obviously, the Tribunal has committed error inas-much the Rule 9(1) specifically indicates that the regular con-tinuous service in the grade would be the determining factor. Since admittedly Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner were in the same grade, there is no rhyme and reason not to count the services rendered as Labour Officer prior to the incumbent being appointed as Assistant Welfare Commissioner for determining his seniority in the cadre. The conclusion of the Tribunal, there-fore, is contrary to the plain meaning of the Rule 9(1) of the Recruitment Rule, which governs the question of seniority. In our view, the continuous length of service in the grade is the deter-mining factor for the purpose of reckoning seniority in the cadre. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
3. Shri Koteswara Rao respondent no. 1 did not appear in spite of due service of notice. On the last occasion, when the matter had reached before us because a prayer had been made, we had directed issuance of fresh notice, and it appears notice has been issued on 13th January, 2001, and more than 2 months have elapsed in the meantime. We, therefore, hold that the notice must be deemed to have been duly served.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench dealing with the ques-tion of inter se seniority between the Labour Officer and Assis-tant Welfare Commissioner. By a notification dated 3rd February 1987, a set of rules were framed in exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution called the Central Labour (Service) Rules 1987. Section 2(c) of the said Rule de-fines the “departmental candidates” to mean all the existing officers holding Group ‘A’ posts recruited under the different Rules enumerated therein. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) were being recruited under the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Recruitment Rules,1958, whereas Labour Officers were being recruited under the Labour Officers (Central Pool) Recruit-ment and Conditions of Service Rules 1951. Rule 2(g) defines “Grade” to mean a Grade specified in Column 2 of Schedule I. Schedule I, Item 5 indicates Grade V, which includes the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) as well as the Labour Officer and Assistant Welfare Commissioner. It is thus apparent that the post of Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner were in the same grade. Rule 9 of the aforesaid Recruitment Rules deals with the seniority.
Seniority:-
(1) “The inter se seniority of the officers appointed to the various Grades mentioned in Schedule 1 at the initial constitu-tion stage of the Service under Rule 6, shall be determined according to the length of regular continuous service in the Grade subject to maintenance in the respective Grades of inter se seniority of officers recruited under the Rules men-tioned in Clause (c) of Rule 2.”
2. The real question that arises for consideration is whether a person who had been appointed as a Labour Officer subsequent to 31.12.1972, and then had been appointed as Assistant Labour Commissioner, and was continuing as such Assistant Labour Commis-sioner on the date the aforesaid recruitment Rules came into -force, and two posts were clubbed together, the services rendered by such employee as Labour Officer could be counted as continuous length of service in the grade in terms of Rules 9(1) of the Recruitment Rules? Proviso to Rule 9(1) speaks of the Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner recruited prior to 31.12.1972 with which proviso we are not concerned in the present case. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment, while interpreting the Rule 9(1), has come to the conclusion that it is the continu-ous length of service as Assistant Labour Commissioner, which shall be taken into account for the purpose of seniority in terms of Rule 9(1). Obviously, the Tribunal has committed error inas-much the Rule 9(1) specifically indicates that the regular con-tinuous service in the grade would be the determining factor. Since admittedly Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner were in the same grade, there is no rhyme and reason not to count the services rendered as Labour Officer prior to the incumbent being appointed as Assistant Welfare Commissioner for determining his seniority in the cadre. The conclusion of the Tribunal, there-fore, is contrary to the plain meaning of the Rule 9(1) of the Recruitment Rule, which governs the question of seniority. In our view, the continuous length of service in the grade is the deter-mining factor for the purpose of reckoning seniority in the cadre. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
3. Shri Koteswara Rao respondent no. 1 did not appear in spite of due service of notice. On the last occasion, when the matter had reached before us because a prayer had been made, we had directed issuance of fresh notice, and it appears notice has been issued on 13th January, 2001, and more than 2 months have elapsed in the meantime. We, therefore, hold that the notice must be deemed to have been duly served.
