DALBIR SINGH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
LAWS(DLH)-2007-12-181
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on December 20,2007

DALBIR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Before us the petitioner put the following poser: "Whether the impugned order dated 25.5.2000 passed by the Deputy Director (HQ) in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Government Of NCT of Delhi regularizing the ad-hoc period of service of respondent No.3 was in violation of recruitment rules for the post of Fertilizer Inspector" Contention of the petitioner is that such an order could not have been passed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case ofDirect Recruitment Class-II Engineering Officers" Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1990 2 SCC 715. The petitioner had raised the same issue before the Tribunal by filing an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act but he failed in his attempt. He is seeking reversal of the said judgment and quashing of orders dated 25.5.2000 by means of this petition.
(2.) The petitioner is a direct recruit who was appointed to the post of Senior Demonstrator on 13.7.1990 after his successful selection to the said post through the Staff Selection Board. He was regularized on the said post with effect from 1.8.1994, which date was changed to 13.7.1990 as a result of judgment dated 8.3.2000 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 1972/1996 preferred by the petitioner challenging his seniority which was assigned on the basis of date of regularization, i.e. 1.8.1994. The Tribunal had directed the Department "to take into consideration the continuous ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 as regular appointment from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. 13.7.1990, and also to allocate a proper place to the petitioner in the Seniority List dated 9.5.1995 accordingly". The respondent No.3 is a promotee. He was appointed as a Soil Conservation Assistant on 25.10.1983, which was a post in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300. According to the petitioner, this post was created under the scheme known as Soil Reclamation Scheme. Vide orders dated 30.5.1988, the respondent No.3 was promoted on ad-hoc basis to the post of Seed Certification Inspector in the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 initially for a period of six months. He continued to enjoy the said promoted post even after the expiry of six months period as it was extended from time to time. On 31.7.1991, the respondent No.3 was transferred to the post of Fertilizer Inspector in the same pay-scale and was ultimately regularized with effect from 18.12.1991.
(3.) Post of Fertilizer Inspector and Senior Demonstrator are equivalent in rank and there is a joint seniority maintained. It is clear from the facts narrated uptil now that the petitioner was also appointed as Senior Demonstrator initially on ad-hoc basis on 13.7.1990 and was regularized with effect from 1.8.1994. The respondent No.3, likewise, was promoted on ad-hoc basis on 30.5.1988 and was regularized with effect from 18.12.1991. If one looks into the appointment of both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3 with reference to initial appointments on ad-hoc basis, the respondent No.3 was promoted/ appointed prior in point of time than the petitioner. If one has to have regard to the date of regular appointment for the purpose of seniority, even then the respondent No.3 scores mileage over the petitioner as he was regularized on the post with effect from 18.12.1991, whereas the petitioner was regularized with effect from 1.8.1994. However, the case of the petitioner is that whereas he is entitled to count his seniority with effect from the date he was appointed on ad-hoc basis, i.e. 13.12.1990, which benefit he got from the judgment of the Tribunal in his application preferred, the respondent No.3 is not entitled to the same treatment and his seniority should be counted from the date of his regularization in the post of Fertilizer Inspector. In this manner, argues the petitioner, he would be senior to the respondent No.3. To know the basis of such a submission, we may have to fathom into some more facts.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.