Seniority Can't Be Granted To Promoted Employees From Past Date When They Weren't Born In Cadre : Supreme Court
In a recent case, the Supreme Court observed that employees promoted to a particular cadre cannot claim the benefits of promotion when they were not even born in the cadre. The dispute concerns the seniority list published by the Nagaland Government of the Junior Engineers. There were two sets of appointees in the position of the junior engineers wherein one set of appointees was...
In a recent case, the Supreme Court observed that employees promoted to a particular cadre cannot claim the benefits of promotion when they were not even born in the cadre.
The dispute concerns the seniority list published by the Nagaland Government of the Junior Engineers. There were two sets of appointees in the position of the junior engineers wherein one set of appointees was directly recruited vide notification dated 01.05.2003 and another set of appointees was promoted to the position of Junior Engineer from the position of the Selection Grade-I employees vide letter dated 11.10.2007.
The Seniority list published by the state government kept the junior engineers who were directly recruited in higher ranks than the junior engineers who were promoted. This led to the filing of the Writ Petition before the High Court by the promoted junior engineers/respondents. The Single Judge dismissed the petitions and upheld the seniority list, following this an intra-court appeal was preferred by the respondents wherein the Division Bench overturned the Single Judge decision and set aside the seniority list.
Being aggrieved by the division bench judgment, the Appellants/junior engineers who were directly recruited preferred the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The issue that came for the Court's consideration was whether the respondents were entitled to claim the benefit of seniority from the back date i.e., before the date of their appointment on the post of Junior Engineer.
Setting aside the division bench judgment, the bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that the Division bench committed an error in granting the benefit of seniority to the respondent from the date on which they were not even part of the cadre.
“The blatant error committed by the Division Bench of the High Court is that upgraded Sectional Officer, Grade-I, are directed to be given seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers from a date on which they were not even born in the cadre as it was only after 11.10.2007 upgradation order that they became Junior Engineers, which was much after the direct recruitment made on 01.05.2003.”, the judgment authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal said.
The Court found that since there were no two different modes of recruitment before the year 2003 and it was for the first time in 2003 that direct recruitment was made, therefore the respondents cannot claim parity with the appointees who were directly recruited.
“The Division Bench of the High Court has further gone wrong in considering the upgradation of post of Sectional Officer and certain other posts to that Junior Engineers prior to 01.05.2003 when direct recruitment to the post of Junior Engineers was made for the first time. That historical background did not have any relevance for the reason that prior to 2003 never before in the cadre of Junior Engineers there was recruitment from two different sources. The dispute arose only thereafter.”, the court said.
Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside and the seniority list of the Junior Engineers circulated was upheld.
Appeals were allowed.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudarsh Menon, AOR Mr. Shine P. Sasidhar, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. K N Balgopal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Ms. Nitya Nambiar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avijit Roy, AOR Mr. Samarth Mohanty, Adv. Mr. K N Balgopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Ms. Nitya Nambiar, Adv. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudarsh Menon, AOR Mr. Shine P. Sasidhar, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Tiwari, Adv.
Case Title: MHABEMO OVUNG & ORS. VERSUS M. MOANUNGBA & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9927 OF 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 629