Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. It is the case of the respondents that the applicants, including Anju Nigam, had put up a joint case and had misrepresented that the date of joining of Sanjay Sharan and V.P. Singh had been backdated or revised to 26th August, 1988, whereas their date of joining was not backdated. Both Sanjay Sharan and V.P. Singh had got promoted to the Senior Time Scale with effect from 26th August, 1992 instead of 21st August, 1993 for the reason that their immediate junior, V. Raja Rajan was promoted to the Senior Time Scale on 26th August, 1992, on completion of four years of service, V. Raja Rajan having joined on 26th August, 1988.

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.

25. Argument of Anju Nigam that her date of actual or initial joining or appointment should be backdated would falter in law for the Rules do not postulate or permit such backdating. In equity also, Anju Nigam‟s case has to be rejected for the reason that she had herself asked for extension of time for joining the Indian Postal Service by three months vide letter dated 19 th August, 1988. Subsequently, by letter of the official respondents dated 16 th September, 1988, she was informed about her exemption from joining the foundation course, which had commenced in the meantime on 25th August, 1988. She was also informed that the offer of appointment letter would be issued by the concerned Ministry in the month of November/December, 1988, which would contain the joining instructions. By letter dated 13th December, 1988 Anju Nigam was informed and given an offer of appointment and was required to report to the Director, Postal Staff College, New Delhi on 12th January, 1989. Again, Anju Nigam had requested for postponement of the date of joining vide her letter dated 12th January, 1989 and her telegram dated 23rd January, 1989. Subsequently, by letter dated 28th March, 1989, Anju Nigam had written to the Director, Postal Staff College stating that she was fit to assume duty and would be obliged on being informed about date of joining. By letter dated 3rd May, 1989, Anju Nigam was permitted by the official respondents to join by 15 th May, 1989. Anju Nigam thereupon accepted the offer and had joined on 15th May, 1989. Before joining, as Anju Nigam was working in the State Bank of India at Lucknow, she had the option to continue in the said service and not join the Indian Postal Service. It will be rather incongruous, if not absurd, to hold that Anju Nigam should be treated as in service in the Junior Time Scale in the Indian Postal Service with effect from 26 th August, 1988, when in fact she was working in the State Bank of India at Lucknow and had continued to work there before accepting the offer of appointment and joining the Indian Postal Service in the Junior Time Scale on 15th May, 1989.