Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.68 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
V.K. Dubey & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 April, 1997
In the case of V. K. Dubey & Ors vs.
Union of India & Ors, (1997) 5 SCC 81 the drivers and
the staff working with Diesel Locomotive Sector were
absorbed after giving necessary training, in the trains
22
operating on electricity on account of gradual
displacement of diesel engines. On such shifting to a new
cadre they were found not entitled to seniority over the
staff regularly working on the electrical side.
Direct Recruit Class Ii Engineering ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 May, 1990
In AIR 1990, SC 1607, (Direct Recruit
class-II Engineering Officers' Association Vs State of
Maharashtra) there was a contest over seniority between
direct recruits and promotees belonging to same service.
It was not a case of transfer from one service to another
on request or on merger. In the facts of that case, it was
held that if the initial appointment was not on account of
fortuitous circumstances and the appointee continued in
the office till regularization of his service in accordance
with rules, the period of officiating service will be
counted towards seniority. Those appointed in excess of
quota due to non implementation of quota for a number
of years could not be pushed down below the appointees
of later dates. The respondents have pointed out that
even if their services under the Adult Education is
treated to be a period of continuous officiation which has
26
been followed by appointment made in accordance with
law for regular substantive appointment in the service,
their past service cannot be ignored for the purpose of
seniority.
Dev Raj Gupta vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 2 November, 2000
In the case of Dev Raj Gupta Vs State of
Punjab & Ors, (2001)X SCC 397 the appellant was
originally appointed as a Clerk in another department in
1967 where he continued till 1976. He applied for
20
another post of Clerk in another department and on being
selected got appointed on 4-1-1977. His plea for
counting the length of service rendered in the earlier
department for the purpose of seniority was rejected by
the Apex Court in view of provisions in the relevant
rules which provided that the seniority interse of the
members of the services in the concerned department
shall be determined by the dates of their continuous
appointment in the service. In view of such statutory
provisions in the Service Rules the benefit of past service
was not permissible for computing seniority.
S.P. Shivprasad Pipal vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 1998
In the case of S. P. Shivprasad Pipal vs
Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 598, the challenge was to
constitution of a new Service by merging three cadres
existing from before in the Ministry of Labour, Union of
India by framing Central Labour Services Rules, 1997 in
exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of
Constitution of India. The Apex court held that power of
judicial review was very limited in such matters because
the merger/integration of cadres is essentially a matter of
policy. If the relevant facts are taken into consideration
27
while effecting the merger and if seniority is also
determined on equitable considerations, there was no
valid ground for judicial interference even if chances of
promotion are adversely affected due to
merger/integration of cadre. According to the
respondents, ignoring their past service would be
inequitable and, therefore, impugned decisions relating
to seniority need not be interfered with.
Tej Narain Tiwary vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 18 February, 1993
In the case of Tej Narain Tiwari Vs State
of Bihar, (1993) Supp.2 SCC 623 it was held that benefit
of past service is admissible when an employee is
compulsorily transferred to a new post or when an ex
cadre post is amalgamated with cadre post. On facts, it
was held in that case that the appellant was transferred
either due to abolition of previous post or by compulsory
transfer.
Joyachan M. Sebastian vs The Directur General & Ors on 23 August, 1996
15. On behalf of the appellants reliance was
also placed upon judgement of the Apex Court in the
case of Joyachan M. Sebastian vs. Director General &
Ors,(1996) 10 SCC 291. That was a case of abolition of
posts and thereafter fresh entry in a vacancy available in
a different region. The absorption in the post available in
another region was made on request and hence, it was
held that the affected employee would not be entitled to
the benefit of continuance in service for the purpose of
seniority.
1