In Absence Of Any Statutory Provision, Seniority Is Counted From Appointment To A Post: Himachal Pradesh High Court
A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja while deciding a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) in the case of State of HP & Ors vs Reena Verma has held that in the absence of any statutory provision, once a person is appointed to a post, his/her seniority is counted from the date of appointment. Background...
A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja while deciding a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) in the case of State of HP & Ors vs Reena Verma has held that in the absence of any statutory provision, once a person is appointed to a post, his/her seniority is counted from the date of appointment.
Background Facts
Reena Verma (Respondent) was appointed as a clerk on compassionate ground in pursuance of an order dated 08.05.2003. The Respondent joined her duties on 17.05.2003. However, on 15.05.2003, the state government issued a notification which provided that appointments made in Himachal Pradesh on or after the date of publication of the aforesaid notification were excluded from the applicability of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (CCS Rules). The aforesaid notification was issued as the Government wanted to notify a Contributory Pension Scheme for the government servants whose appointments had been made on or after 15.05.2003.
The Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the single judge of the Himachal Pradesh HC claiming that she was being persuaded to become a part of the Contributory Pension Scheme by considering her appointment date as 17.05.2003 as against the date of order of her appointment i.e. 08.05.2003. The single judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the Respondent was in fact appointed on 08.05.2003 and was thus governed by the CCS Rules.
It was contended by the Appellants that 17.05.2003 needs to be considered as the date of appointment as the letter of appointment made it clear that the Respondent would be entitled to the pay scale and other allowances only from the date of her joining the post.
Findings of the Court
The court observed that the date of appointment is the starting point of computation of length of service. The court further held that in absence of any statutory provision or rule made thereunder or under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, once an incumbent is appointed to the post, his/her seniority has to be counted from the date of appointment. The court observed that since no statutory provision had been brought to the notice of the court regarding determination of seniority, the seniority of the Respondent would be determined from her date of appointment i.e. 08.05.2003
The court further relied on the case of Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia vs. The State of Punjab and others wherein the Supreme Court had clearly held that date of order of appointment is not synonymous with the date of appointment. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case also provided for 3 kinds of orders of appointments i.e. firstly, orders that appoint a person with effect from the date he assumes charge of the post, secondly, orders that appoint the person from immediate effect and lastly, orders that appoint a person simpliciter without saying as to when the appointment shall take effect.
The court further observed the order of appointment of the Respondent falls in the third category of the aforesaid 3 kinds of orders of appointment. No date to give effect to the appointment was specifically indicated and only the date from which the salary and allowances would be admissible was given. Since in the place of posting, it was mentioned “District Headquarters”, it indicated that the appointment had been considered to be complete on the date of issuance of the Office Order itself i.e. 08.05.2003. If the Appellants wanted the seniority of the Respondent to be counted from a subsequent date, then nothing prevented them from mentioning the same as a condition in the office order of appointment.
With the aforesaid observations, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
Case No.- LPA No. 79 of 2020
Case Title: State of HP & Ors vs Reena Verma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 9
Counsel for the Appellants- Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma and Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate Generals
Counsel for the Respondent- Mr. P.P. Chauhan