Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. As noticed above, Anju Nigam and other co-applicants had wrongly predicated and premised their case on the assumption that Sanjay Sharan and V.P. Singh had been given the benefit of backdating of their date of appointment in view of the fact that they were granted exemption from attending the training course after declaration of CSE results in 1987. This is incorrect and wrong, for neither Sanjay Sharan nor V.P. Singh has been given benefit of backdating of their date of appointment. Their date of appointment remains 21st August, 1989. However, their promotion to the Senior Time Scale has been backdated to 28th August, 1993 as their immediate junior V. Raja Rajan (at serial no.8) was promoted to the Senior Time Scale on the said date. Benefit given to Sanjay Sharan and V.P. Singh is identical to the benefit given to Anju Nigam in whose case also promotion to the Senior Time Scale has been backdated to the date of promotion of her immediate junior Vinay Kumar Tiwary on 12th January, 1993 in terms of Rule 20(8) of the Indian Postal Service (Group A) Recruitment Rules.

23. Counsel for Anju Nigam had placed reliance on Union of India versus K.B. Rajoria, (2000) 3 SCC 562, to submit that the expression "regular service" need not be actual physical service. Ratio in the said case, in our opinion, does not support the case of Anju Nigam, rather it supports case of the official respondents for they have acted in consonance with the said decision. In the said case, K.B. Rajoria had challenged consideration/appointment of Krishnamoorti to the post of Director General, which challenge was accepted by the High Court reversing the judgment of the Tribunal on the ground that the expression "regular service" would mean actual service to exclude backdated promotion granted to a senior officer on the junior officer being promoted in terms of applicable Rule. The Supreme Court observed that Krishnamoorti was not promoted on ad hoc basis, albeit was granted promotion with effect from the date the junior was promoted, though the actual date of promotion was subsequent. In this context, the Supreme Court had observed that the expression "qualifying service" for eligibility for further promotion would mean the date on which, as per the Rule position, Krishnamoorti was granted promotion. This decision does not state that the original date of appointment can be backdated contrary to the Rules. As noticed above, Anju Nigam has been given benefit of promotion to the Senior Time Scale from the date her junior was granted promotion.