Holding

Seniority in the parent department on the equivalent post continues to govern inter‑se seniority of deputationists unless a specific statutory rule provides otherwise.

Summary

The appellant Attar Singh Kaushik and respondent Vishveshwar Dayal Sharma were both Assistant Sub‑Inspectors of Police who were deputed to the Vigilance Department of the Delhi Transport Authority and later absorbed permanently. A dispute arose over their inter‑se seniority after absorption, with the respondent having been promoted earlier in the parent department. The High Court held that seniority should be determined based on seniority in the parent department on the equivalent post, subject to the relevant Establishment and Administration Rules. The appellant argued that the respondent, being from a ministerial cadre, was ineligible for absorption and raised limitation and repatriation issues. The Supreme Court affirmed that seniority in the parent department continues unless a statutory rule provides otherwise, and that the Rules (clause 3.1, 3.4.1, Rule 10.2(ii)) require consideration of the earlier of the deputation date or the regular appointment date in the parent department. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

Whether inter‑se seniority among deputationists absorbed in a borrowing department should be determined by seniority in the parent department on the equivalent post.
Whether the ministerial versus executive cadre classification affects eligibility for absorption.
Whether the limitation period bars the original application for seniority.
Whether the respondent’s repatriation order impacts his continued absorption.

Subjects

senioritydeputationabsorptionEstablishment and Administration Rulesinter se seniorityexecutive cadreministerial cadreservice lawlimitation

Judgment

/
r
·---1
)

}...
ATTAR SINGH KAUSHIK A
v.
SECRETARY, COMMR. TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT AND
ANR.

OCTOBER 1I, 2007 ·B
jS.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH REDI, JJ.)

Service Law:
c
Seniority of depulationisls on absorption in borrowing
department-Assisiant Sub-Inspectors ofPolice-Deputed to Vigilance
Deparlment of Transport Authority-HELD: Those who were senior
in the parent department on equivalent post should continue to be
senior in deputed post unless there exists a statutory rule to the
D
contrary-Besides, there is nothing on record to show that employees
lFVrking on Executive Cadre alone, and not those lvorking in
r Ministerial cadre, were entitled to be absorbed in Transport
Departmenl-Rules have righlly been interpreted by High Court-
EstablishmentandAdministrationRules-rr. 3.1, 3.4.1 and J0.2(ii).
E
Respondent no. 3 was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police on 3.6.1988 and the appellant on 3.2.1990. Both were deputed
on 12.8.1991 to the VigilanceDepartmentoftheTransportAuthority,
NCT, Delhi, but their absorption in the borrowing Department having
taken place on different dates, a dispute regarding their seniority F
arose wherein the High Court held that seniority of parties should
.... be determined on the basis of their respective seniority in the parent
r department on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police which
was the feeder cadre. Aggrieved, the affected employee filed the
instant appeal. G
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

~ HELD: l. It is axiomatic that those who were senior in the
parent department on the equivalent post should continue to be
73 H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A senior on the deputed post unless there exists a statutory rule to
the contrary. A bare perusal of the relevant provisions would clearly
go to show that the position of the employees concerned in the same
or equivalent cadre on regular basis in parent department is a
relevant factor for determining the inter se seniority. The date from
B which the employee had been holding the post on deputation is
another relevant factor. However, it has also been provided that date
from which he has been appointed on regular post to the same or
equivalent grade in his parent department, whichever is earlier would
be considered for determining the inter se seniority. The Rules have _
c rightly been interpreted by the High Court keeping in view its
purport and tenor. The Rules are required to be interpreted
harmoniously so as to give effect to all the relevant provisions.
Makers of the Rules furthermore must be presumed to have in mind,
while laying down the same, to give justice to all concerned.
D [Para 15] [81-F-H; 82-A]
Sub-Inspector Roop/al & Anr. v. Lt. Governor Through Chief
Secretmy, Delhi & Ors., [2000] 1 SCC 644, referred to.
Jndu Shekhar Singh & Ors. v. State ofU.P. & Ors., [2006] 8 SCC
E 129, held inapplicable.
Swamy's Manual on 'Establishment and Administration',
referred to.
2. As regards the plea that the respondent belonging to
F ministerial cadre was not eligible for appointment in Vigilance
Department, it has not been disputed that the parties were working
as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police in the parent department. It
appears that only for the purpose of classification, they were
mentioned as belonging to Ministerial or Executive cadre. It does
G not appear that any eligibility criteria had been laid down for the
purpose of absorption by the State in its Transport Department.
Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the employees
working in the Executive cadre alone were entitled to be absorbed
in the Transport Department. From the Rules, it appears that the
H only condition laid down for deputation was that employees concerned
ATTARSINGHKAUSHIKv. SECRETARY,COMMR. 75
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT [SINHA, J.]
should be working in the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. A
[Para 6, 8 and 11] [76-G-H; 77-F-H; 78-A; 79-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4791 of
2007.
From the Judgment and final Order dated 13.9.2006 of the High B
~
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.W.P. No. 6710 of2003.
Naginder Rai, Naresh Kaushik, Lalita Kaushik and Arnita Kalkat
for the Appellant.
P.P. Khurana, M.K. Bhardwaj and Ashwani Bhardwaj for the c
Respondents.
The Judgmf~nt of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave Granted.
D
}
2. Inter se seniority amongst the deputationists is in question in this
appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.9.2006 passed
).
by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi whereby and whereunder
the writ petition filed by the appellant herein assailing the order of the
Tribunal dated 18.9.2003 allowing the original application filed by
E
Visheshwar Dayal Shanna was dismissed. With a view to appreciate the
fact of the matter involved herein, we may notice the particulars of the
requisite service records amongst others of the Appellant vis-a-vis
Respondent No. 2 herein :
"Seniority List F
°'!
..,., Date of promotion as AS.I.
I. Inder Pal Singh 01.01.1987
2. Mathura Prasad 08.02.1988
1. Vishveshwar Dayal Sharma 03.06.1988 (Respondent)
G
4. Kartar Singh 29.06.1988
' \ 5. Ramesh Chander 28.08.1989
6. Tara Prasad 28.08.1989
7. Attar Singh Kaushik 08.02.1990 (Appellant)
8. Joginder Singh 30.01.1991"
H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A J. Indisputably, Appellant was appointed as a Constable. He was
promoted in the year· 1980; whereas the respondent was appointed as a
Head Constable on or about 28.4.1982. They both were promoted to
the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, the respondent on 3.6.1988 and the
appellant on 3 .2.1990. Both of them were deputed to the Vigilance
B Department of the Transp01t Authority, National Capital Territory of Delhi
on 12.8.1991. -

4. It is not in dispute that both groups of employees were absorbed
permanently in the Vigilance Department of the Transport Authority.
C Seniority of the deputationists upon absorption in the said department is
governed by clause 3.1 of Establishment and Administration Rules (see
Swamy's Manual). Indisputably, Respondent was deputed prior to the
appellant herein, although he was absorbed in the Department, a month
prior to him.
D 5. The High Court while determining the disputes examined the
record of the Department. lt noticed that in doing so, the relevant Rules,
particularly Rule 10.2(ii), in te1ms whereof Administrative Ministry is -<
required to certify that there was no other deputationist in position
appointed earlier to the officer proposed for absorption, was not carried
E out. In terms of the said Rules, the borrowing department was further
required to certify that if there had been any such person and he had not
been willing to be considered for appointment on absorption basis.
Keeping in view the aforementioned provision as also Clause 3.4.l of
the seniority of the absorbees as contained in Establishment and
F Administration Rules (Swamy's Manual), the High Court opined that
seniority of the parties hereto should be determined on the basis of their
respective seniority in the equivalent grade in the parent department which
is the feeder grade being the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police.

G 6. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant, in support of the appeal, inte ralia, would submit:
(I) Third respondent being belonging to ministerial cadre was not
eligible for appointment in the Vigilance Department under the
Rules;
H
ATTARSINGHKAUSHIKv. SECRETARY,COMMR. 77
TRANSPORTDEPARTMENT[SINHA,J.]
>--
(2) The inter se seniority between the parties having been A
determined by the authorities as far back as on 28.5.199?.,
the original application filed by the respondent was barred by
limitation; and
(3) Respondent No.3 could not have continued to remain on
deputation despite his repatriation as directed by the order B
~.
dated 16.12.1991.
(4) In the light of the decision of this Court in Sub-Inspector
\-'
Roop/al & Anr. v. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary,
Delhi .& Ors., [2000] I SCC 644, operates in the field, c
impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
7. Mr. P.P. Khurana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent, on the other hand, contended :
I. Respondent No. 3 indisputably was senior to the Appellant D
as the ent1y point of the Appellant and the other respondents
was different;
2. Whereas the Appellant entered in the services as a Constable
of the Transport Department, Respondent No. 3 entered in
the services as a Head Constable and, indisputably, he was E
promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector earlier than
the appellant and, thus, for all intent and purpo1t he was senior;
and
3. Even Respondent No. 3 was deputed to the Transport
Department prior to the Appellant, the same was of no F
consequence for the purpose of determining inter se seniority.
8. It has not been disputed before us that all the employees
concerned who were parties to the original application before the Tribunal
as also the writ petition before the High Court were working as Assistant G
Sub Inspector of Police in the parent department. It does not appear that

-- any eligibility criteria had been laid down for the pl,Jrpose of absorption
by the State in its Transport Department. There is moreover nothing on
record to show that the employees working in the Executive cadre alone
were entitled to be absorbed in the Transport Depart,ment. From the Rules, H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A as noticed hereinbefore, it appears that the only condition laid down for
deputation was that employees concerned should be working in the cadre
of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police.
9. It may be true that Respondent No. 3 was directed to be
B repatriated to his parent Department but for one rea.Son or the other the
same has not been given effect to. The said order of repatriation admittedly
was not implemented. Appellant, in our opinion, at this juncture, cannot, >-
therefore, be permitted to question the very absorption of respondent No.3
on the deputed post on that ground or otherwise. Furthermore, the said '1
question viz. continuity of respondent No. 3 by the Transport Department
C was not even raised before the Tribunal or before the High Court and,
thus, he cannot be permitted to do so before us.
10. The office order dated 28.5.1993 which is in the following tem1S:
"In pursuance of the issue of No Objection by the Dy. Commr.
D Police Q(l) Delhi, vide letter No.2161 O/CB-VI dated 20.S:93 and
willingness given by the Asstt. Sub Inspectors to their absorption
in the: Transport Deptt. Govt. ofNCT of Delhi, the following Asstt.
Sub-Inspectors are hereby absorbed as Sub-Inspectors (Enf.) in
the pay scale ofRs.1200-1800 with immediate effect. Since all
E the officials are absorbed in the Transport Department from the
days of the issue of the order, their inter se seniority will be on the
date mentic)ned against their names :-
S.No. Namt.~s of the official Date of Appointment
1. Sh. Mathma Prasad 17.3.1969
F
2. Sh. Kartar Singh 23.9.1969
3. Sh. Rames:h Chander 29.6.1974
4. Sh. Tara Prasad 29.6.1974
5. Sh. Inder P1al Singh 1.9.1978
G
6. Sh. Joginder Singh 2.6.1980
7. Sh. V.D. Sharma 28.4.1982

The above mentioned Sub-Inspectors (Enf.) have, however,
option to reveri.t back to their parent office within two years from
H
I

1
ATTAR SINGH KAUSHIK v. SECRETARY, COMMR. 79
TRANSPORTDEPARTMENT[SINHA,J.]
the date of their absorption in the Transport Deptt., Govt. of NCT A
of Delhi."
11. It appears that only for the purpose of classification, they were
mentioned as being belonging to Ministerial or Executive cadre but the
qualifications ]aid down in the Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant
Sub Inspector on deputation were : (as on page 80) B
~.

12. Relevant portion of the circular letter dated 10.5.1991 on the
.. basis whereof the parties hereto, amongst others, volunteered for being
deputed in the Transport Departments reads as under :
"The service of Assistant Sub Inspector are required to fill up the c
post of Sub-Inspector in Transport Authority on deputation basis
in the pay scale of Rs.1200-1800 and· having the following
qualification/experience are eligibJe for the above posts:-
(1) Graduate from recognized University.
D
'> (2) Sufficient knowledge on Motor Vehicle Law.
(3) 3 years driving experiences of all types of vehicle.
)_

2. Vohmteers amongst ASI having above qualification/experience
may please be called and names of willing officers may please tJr E
sent to this Hdqrs. on the enclosed proforma by 20.5.91 positively.
The officers so recommended for deputation under no
circumstances may be permitted to withdraw their nomination either
before or after the selection."
13. Clauses 3.1and3.4.1 of the Rules relating to seniority of the F
absorbees from Swamy's Manual on Establishment and Administration
read as under :
"Seniority of Absorbees

3.1.The relative seniority of persons appointed by absorption to a G
Central service from the Subordinate Officers of the Central
Government or other departments of the Central or a State
Government shall be determined in accordance with the order of
their selection for such absorption
H
::c 0 "'T'j m Ci (1 to >
Recruitment Rules for the post of Asst. Sub-lnsnector, Sub-Inspector & Inspector
00

S.
No.
I Name of
the Post
No. of
Posts
Classi-
fication
Scale of
the Post
Whether selection
post or non-
Age limit
for direct
Educational and
other qualification
0

selection pvst recruitment required for direct recruitment
2. Sub- 17 Group ·c 1200-1300 Non-selection 25-30 years I. Graduation from the
Inspector non recognized University C/J
Gazetted 2. Sufficient knowledge c'"O
Non- of Motor Vehicle Law ~
Ministerial 3. 3 yrs. (illegible) of all tr:!
typed of vehicle ~
tr:!
Whether age & Period of Method of rectt. In case of rectt by if a DCP Circumstances in which n
Educational promotion Whether by direct promotion/categories/ exists, DPC's is to be cossujted 0
Qualifications if any rectt. or by position transfer (illegible) what is in making rectt.
c
:::0
prescribed for or by deputation/ from which promotion/ composition >--3
direct recruits transfer and deputa.tion/transfer ~
will apply in percentage of the to be made. tr:!
"ti
the case of vacancies to be 0
Promotees filled by various notices ~
>--3
[/.J
N.A. 2 Yrs. 33-1/3 promotion failing (illegible) Group 'C' N.A.
which by transfer on Asstt. Sub-Inspector of D.C.P.
deputation failing both by direct Enf. Branch of the Dte ~

N
rectt, 66-2/33 by transfer on of transport with 5 yrs 0
0
deputation failing which by Transfer of deputation: -..J
'--'
direct rectt. Persons holding the post of AS!
In Delhi Police/CRPF/RPF
and having educational [/.J

n
and other qualifications
prescribed for direct recruits. I ~

~
}.- ,}-. y .)-
..:..... ... '"""\ -,,.;
.,;-
I
-t
ATTARSINGHKAUSHIK v. SECRETARY,COMMR. 81
TRANSPORTDEPARTMENT[SINHA,J.]
3.4.1 In the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation A
and absorbed later (i.e., where the relevant Recruitment Rules
provide for "deputation/absorption"), his seniority in the grade in
which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of
absorption. If he has, however, been holding already (on the
date of absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular B
basis in his parent department, such regular service in the
~·
grade shall also be taken into account in fixing his seniority,
subject to the condition that he 1vill be given seniority from -

- the date he has been holding the post on deputation.
c
(or)- the date ji·om which he has been appointed on a regular
basis to the same or equivalent grade in his parent department,
whichever is earlier. "
14. The tentative seniority list was circulated only on 19 .6.1998.
Only when the tentative senimity list was circulated, the original application D
was filed although the appellant was impleaded as a party in the said
original application at a later date. We may, furthermore, notice that the
j said question is now wholly academic as the seniority list was published
only in 2002. The Tribunal, as also the High Court, having laid do\\11 the
principles for determining seniority list on the basis whereof now a fresh E
seniority list is to be published, the question of limitation loses all
significance.
15. A bare perusal of the said provisions would furthermore clearly
go to show that the position of the employees concerned in the same or F
equivalent cadre on regular basis in parent department is a relevant factor
for determining the inter se seniority. The date from which the employee
had been holding the post on deputation is another relevant factor.
However, it has also been provided that date from which he has been
appointed on regular post to the same or equivalent grade in his parent G
department, whichever is earlier would be considered for determining the
)
inter se seniority. The Rules have tightly been interpreted by the High Court
}
keeping in view its purport and tenor. The Rules are required to be
interpreted harmoniously so as to give effect to all tile relevant provisions.
Makers of the Rules furthermore must be presumed to have in mind, while H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A laying down the same, to give justice to all concerned. It is axiomatic that
those who were senior in the parent department in the equivalent post
should continue to be senior in the deputed post unless there exists a
statutory rule to the contrary.
B 16. In Roop/al (supra) itself, whereupon Mr. Rai placed strong
reliance, this Court opined :
"Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that a deputationist when his
service is sought to be absorbed in the transferred department
would certainly have expected that his seniority in the parent
c department would be counted. In such a situation, it was really the
duty of the respondents, if at all the conditions stipulated in the
impugned Memorandum were applicable to such person, to have
made the conditions in the Memorandum known to the
deputationist before absorbing his services, in all fairness, so that
D such a deputationist would have had the option of accepting the
permanent absorption in Delhi Police or not."
17. The question as regards determination of inter se seniority has
been' considered by this Court in lndu Shekhar Singh & Ors. v. State .\
E of UP. & Ors., [2006] 8 SCC 129, relied uponby Mr. Rai, wherein it
was stated:
"The decisions referred to hereinbefore, therefore, lay down a law
that past services would only be directed to be counted towards
seniority in two situations: (1) when there exists a rule directing
F consideration of seniority; and (2) where recruitments are made
from various sources, it would be reasonable to frame a rule y
considering the past services of the employees concerned.".
The said case has no application in the instant case. ·
.G 18. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed
accordingly with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs ..25,000/- (Rupees
twenty five thousands only). ;
·-
~

RP. Appeal dismissed.