Holding

Seniority for a post is to be counted from the date of regular appointment; periods of ad‑hoc service cannot be back‑dated for seniority.

Issues considered

Whether an ad‑hoc appointment, sanctioned for pay and allowances, confers seniority for service law purposes.
Whether seniority should be reckoned from the date of regular appointment or from the date of an ad‑hoc appointment.

Subjects

seniorityad hoc appointmentregular appointmentservice lawpublic servicepay and allowancesequalityarticles 14 and 16

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CHANDIGARH A
ADMINISTRATION (U.T.) CHANDIGARH AND ANR.
v.
S.K. SHARMA, PROFESSOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PUNJAB
ENGINEERING COLLEGE, CHANDIGARH
B
APRIL 3, 1992

[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

Service Law-Seniority-Fixation of-Appointment on ad hoc C
basis-Subsequent regularisation of appointment-Seniority to be reckoned
from the date of regular appointment-Period of ad hoc service rendered not
to be counted.

The respondent was temporarily appointed as Professor (Junior
Scale) in the Department of Irrigation and Hydraulics, Punjab. Sub- D
sequently, he was selected as Professsor (Junior Scale) on regular basis in
the Civil Engineering Department of the Punjab Engineering College. In
view of the fact that the post of Professor (Junior Scale) was not vacant in
the Civil Engineering Department, he was adjusted on ad hoc basis against
the vacant post of Professor (P.G. Course) in the Department of Irrigaion E
and Hydraulics in his own grade from 28.6.1969 to 14.2.1971 and thereafter
from 15.2.1971 to 29.9.1973 against the post of Professor (Senior Scale) in
the Civil Engineering Department. From 29.9.1973 he was selected as
Professor (Senior Scale) on regular basis.

-- The respondent was not paid his pay and allowances for the period
for which he worked against the post of Professor (P.G. Course) or (Senior
Scale) on ad hoc basis from 28.6.1969 to 29.9.1973. He filed an application
F

before the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh claiming pay and
allowances for the aforesaid period which was allowed. In accordance with
the judgment of the Tribunal he was sanctioned pay and allowances but
the period for which he worked on ad hoc basis was not reckoned for the G
purposes of seniority. He filed an application before the Tribunal claiming
seniority on the post of Professor (Senior Scale) counting the entire period
of his continuous ad hoc appointment from 28.6.1969 to 29.9.1973. The
Tribunal held that the respondent was given ad hoc appointment on the
post of Professor (Senior Scale) from 1969 to 1973 after consultation with H
459
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A the Union Public Service Commission and as such he was entitled to claim
his seniority from 28.6.1969. Aga.inst the order of the Tribunal an appeal
was filed in this Court.

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Tribunal, this
Court,
B
HELD :1. The respondent was not entitled to claim his seniority on
the post of Professor (Senior scale) from 28.6.1969 and the appellants had
rightly counted his seniority from 29.9.1973 when he was regularly selected
in accordance with rules on the said post. [465C]
c 2. The order of the Tribunal granting pay and allowances cannot
confer any right on the respondent to claim seniority on the post of
Professor (Senior Scale). The approval of U.P.S.C. for the continuation of
the respondent on the post of Professor (Senior Scale) on ad hoc basis was
merely for the purpose of granting pay and allowances and it cannot be
D considered as a regular appointment of' the respondent on the post of
Professor (Senior Scale). Therefore, the Tribunal was totally wrong in
granting seniority to the respondent for the period of ad hoc appointment
on the post of Professor (Senior Scale). [463E-H, 464A]

E Narender Chadha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1986] 2 S.C.C.
157, distinguished.

Massod Akhtar Khan and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.,
[1990) 4 S.C.C. 24; D.N. Agrawal and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and

F
Ors., [1990] 2 S.C.C. 553; Direct Recntit Class II Engineering Officers'
Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1990) 2 S.C.C. 715, relied on. -
KN. Mishra v. Union of India, A.T.R. (1986) 2 CAT 270, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3082 of
G 1988.

From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.88 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 582/CH
of 1986.

H Kapil Sibal and Ranjit Kumar for the Appellants.
U.0.1. v. S. K. SIV\.RMA [KASLIWAL, J.] 461
> J.S. Bajwa, Ms. Bharti Sharma and Ms. Rani Chhabra for the A
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B
KASLfWAL, J. Union of India and the Home Secretary Chandigarh
Administration have filed this appeal by grant of special leave challenging

-- the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh dated March
3, 1988. The Respondent, Shri S.K. Sharma was appointed initially as
Assistant Professor on 24.9.1958 in the Punjab Engineering College Chan-
digarh. He was promoted as Associate Professor on 23.10.1963. The c
respondent was then promoted as Professor (Junior Scale) on temporary
and ad hoc basis for a period of six months in the department of Irrigation
and Hydraulics vide order dated 293.1969. The respondent was thereafter
appointed as· Professor (Junior Scale) on regular basis through U.P.S.C.
vide order dated 28.6.1969 on probation for a period of two years in the D
Civil Engineering Department of the College. The respondent relinquished
the earlier charge of Professor (Junior Scale) of Irrigation and Hydraulics
and assumed the charge of his new post with effect from the same date.
However, since Dr. S.S. Sharma was holding the post. of Professor (Junior
Scale) in the Civil Engineering Department, the said post was not available
to the respondent Sh. S.K. Sharma and as such the respondent was adjusted E
on ad hoc basis against the vacant post of Professor (P.G. Course) in the
Department of Irrigation and Hydraulics in his own grade. The above
interim arrangement was made on ad hoc basis till such time any regular
selected candidate by the U.P.S.C. joined the post of Professor (P.G.
Course) in the Department of Irrigation and Hydraulics. This appointment F
-0n ad hoc basis continued from 28.6.1969 to 14.2.1971 in the Department
of Irrigation and Hydraulics and thereafter from 15.2.1971 to 29.9.1973
against the post of Professor (Senior Scale) in the Civil Engineering
Department. The respondent was selected for appointment on regular
basis as Professor (Senior Scale) w.e.f. 29.9.1973. The respondent was not G
paid his pay and allowances for the period for which he worked against
the post of Professor (P.G.Course) or (Senior Scale) on ad hoc basis. The
respondent in these circumstances approached the Tribunal and was
granted arrears of pay and allowances for the period 28.6.1969 to 29.9.1973
by the Judgment of the Tribunal dated 12.6.1986 in Application No. T-159
of 1986. H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A Though the respondent was allowed the arrears of pay and allowan-
ces for the post of Professor (Senior Scale) in accordance with the above
Judgment of the Tribunal yet the respondent was not granted seniority on
""'
the post of Professor (Senior Scale) from the date of his ad hoc appoint-
ment on the said post from 28th June, 1969. It may however, be noted that
the Chandigarh Administration though sanctioned the grant of pay of
B Professor (Senior Scale) to the respondent for the period 28.6.1969 to ,...-
29.9.1973 but did not bestow any seniority to the respondent prior to
29.9.1973 when he was selected on regular basis for the post of Professor
(Senior Scale). It is further important to note that though the respondent
had appeared for interview for the post of Professor (P.G. Course) in the
c Irrigation and Hydraulics Department of the College before the U.P.S.C. A(
in September, 1969 but he was rejected whereas one Dr. P.P. Rao was
selected for the said post. As Dr. P.P. Rao joined the post on 15.2.1971 in
the Irrigation and Hydraulics Department, the respondent was adjusted in
....
his own scale of pay against the vacant post of Professor (Senior Scale) in
the Civil Engineering Department on ad hoc basis as already mentioned
D
above. The respondent himself in a letter dated 1.7.1977 addressed to the
Chief Commissioner Chandigarh has stated as under :

"It may be pointed out that Ad hoc appointment has no effect
on the seniority of staff members in the cadre and no super-
E session is involved by allowing the benefit of Pay for the period
I was appointed against higher post. This is a well established ~
fact and have a large number of precedents itself'.

The respondent in the above circumstances submitted an application
F before the Tribunal claiming his seniority on the post of Professor (Senior
Scale) with effect from his ad hoc appointment dated 28.6.1969 which
continued till his regular selection for the said post on 29.9.1973. The
Tribunal vide its impugned order held that the respondent was given ad
hoc appointment on the post of Professor (Senior Scale) from 1969 to 1973
-1
after prior consultation with the U.P.S.C. and as such was entitled to claim
G his seniority from 28.6.1969. The Tribunal however, observed that the grant
of this relief would affect the interest of three/four persons of the College
who had been shown senior to the respondent in the seniority list as such
the appellants (respondnets before the Tribunal) to revise the seniority list
~
taking the above into account and circulate the draft seniority list to all
H concerned inviting their objections, if any, before the seniority list was
U.0.1. v. S. K. SHARMA [KASLIWAL, J.] 463

finalised. This course was considered to be necessary as the affected A
persons had not been made party respondents in the case before the
Tribunal and it was necessary to give an opportunity to give their views in
the matter and there should be no violation of the principles of natural
justice and equity. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal,
the appellants have come before this Court in appeal by grant of special
B
leave.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have thoroughly
perused the record. The facts mentioned above are no longer in dispute
and the only controversy is whether the respondent S.K. Sharma is entitled
to his claim of seniority on the post of Professor (Senior Scale) counting C
the entire period of his continuous ad hoc appointment from 28.6.1969 to
29.9.1973 or his seniority would be counted only from 29.9.1973 when he
was regularly selected for such post after interview by U.P.S.C. The
Tribunal in this regard placed reliance on a decision of this Court in
Narender Cltadlta and Ors. V. Union of India and Ors., [1986] 2 sec 157. D
The Tribunal also placed reliance on a Judgment of the Principal Bench
of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of KN. Mishra v. Union
of India, reported in ATR (1986) 2 CAT P.270.

In our view the Tribunal was totally wrong in granting seniority to
the respondent for the period of ad hoc appointment on the post of E
Professor (Senior Scale), in the facts and circumstances of the present case
and wrongly applied the ratio of Narendra Chadha's case (supra). The
respondent was regularly selected as Professor (Junior Scale) and in view
of the fact that the aforesaid post in the Civil Engineering Department was
not vacant, he was adjusted against the post of Professor (P.G. Course) F
and subsequently against the post of Professor (Senior Scale) on ad hoc
basis in his own grade. It is no doubt correct that the Tribunal in the earlier
application No. T-159of1986 by order dated 12.6.1986 had allowed arrears
of pay and allowances for the period 28.6.1969 to 29.9.1973 for the post of
Professor (Senior Scale) but that was allowed by the Tribunal on the
ground that the respondent had actually worked against the post of Profes- G
sor (Senior Scale) though on ad hoc basis. Such order of the Tribunal
granting pay and allowances cannot confer any right on the respondent to
claim seniority also on· the post of Professor (Senior Scale). The approval
of U.P.S.C. for the continuation of the respondent on the post of Professor
(Senior Scale) on ad hoc basis was merely for the purpose of granting pay H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 2 S.C.R.

A and allowances and it cannot be considered as a regular appointment of
the respondent on the post of Professor (Senior Scale). It may be further
noted that the respondent was selected for the post of Professor (Junior
Scale) on regular basis on 28.6.1969 and according to the extant rules three
years' service on regular basis on the post of Professor (Junior Scale) was
necessary for promotion to the post of Professor (Senior Scale). Thus the
B respondent was not even eligible for promotion to the post of Professor
(Senior Scale) prior to June 28, 1972 till he completed three years of service
on the post of Professor (Junior Scale). In view of this ground al.so the
respondent was not entitled to claim any seniority on the post of Professor
(Senior Scale) from 28.9.1969 the date of his ad hoc appointment on such
c post. Narendra Chadlia's case (supra) does not give any assistance at a.II to
the respondent and the Tribunal was wrong in applying the ratio of
Narendra Chadha's case to the present case. It was held by this Court in
Narendra Chadha's case that persons having been allowed to function in
higher posts for 15 to 20 years with due deliberation it would be unjust to
D hold that there is no sort of claim to such posts and such persons could be
reverted unceremoniously or treated as persons not belonging to the
service at all, particularly where the Government is endowed with the
power to relax the rules to avoid unjust results.

In Masood Akhtar Khan and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and
E Ors., (1990) 4 sec 24 it was held that if the initial appointment is not made
according to the rules, subsequent regularisation of his service does not
entitle an employee to the benefit of inter\'ening service for seniority.
Seniority has to be reckoned from the date of regular appointment and not
to be counted from the date of any stop-gap appointment.
F
In D.N. Agrawal and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., [1990]
2 SCC 553 it was held that regular appointment at later date cannot relate
back to the date of ad hoc appointment and the employee is not entitled
to claim the period of officiation between the dates of ad hoc appointment
and regular appointment for being counted for the purpose of seniority. A
G Constitution Bench of this. Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering
Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (1990) 2 SCC 715
held as under :

"Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule,
H his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment
U.O.I. v. S. K SHARMA [KASLIWAL, J.J 465

and not according to the date of his confirmation. Seniority A
cannot be determined on the sole test of confirmation, for,
confirma.tion is one of the inglorious uncertainties of govern-
ment service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent
nor on the availability of substantive vacancies. The principle
for deciding inter se seniority has to conform to the principles
of equality spelt out by Articles 14 and 16. The corollary of the B
above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc
and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrange-
ment, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account
for considering the seniority".
- In the circumstances mentioned above we are clearly of the view that
the respondent was not entitled to claim his seniority on the post of
c
Professor (Senior Scale) from 28.9.1969 and the appellants had rightly
counted his seniority from 29.9.1973 when he was regularly selected in
accordance with the rules on the said post. In the result we allow this
appeal, set aside the Judgment of the Tribunal dated 3.3.1988. In the
circumstances of the case we direct no order as to costs.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

-