Supreme Court of India
DIRECTOR, C.B.I. & ANR.versusD.P. SINGH
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1312
- Decided
- 16 December 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- MARKANDEY KATJU
Holding
Seniority of a deputationist absorbed later is counted from the date of absorption unless he already held the same or equivalent grade in his parent department; here, Singh’s seniority is from 29 June 1987.
Summary
D.P. Singh, a Uttar Pradesh Police Sub‑Inspector, was deputed to the CBI in 1966 and later appointed to higher posts on deputation quota, including an ad‑hoc appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.SP) in 1977. He was formally absorbed into the CBI as Dy.SP on 29 June 1987 after a UPSC recommendation. Singh claimed that his seniority in the Dy.SP grade should be counted from his 1977 ad‑hoc appointment. The Delhi High Court allowed this claim, but the Supreme Court reversed, interpreting the Office Memorandum dated 29 May 1986 (sub‑para (iv)) to mean that a deputationist’s seniority is normally counted from the date of absorption unless he already held the same or equivalent grade in his parent department. Since Singh never held the Dy.SP rank in the Uttar Pradesh Police, his seniority was fixed from the absorption date, 29 June 1987. The Court set aside the High Court order and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- The correct method of fixing seniority for a deputationist who is later absorbed into the parent department under the Office Memorandum dated 29 May 1986, sub‑para (iv).
- Whether service rendered in an ad‑hoc or officiating capacity prior to absorption can be counted towards seniority in the grade.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 309
Subjects
senioritydeputationabsorptionservice lawCentral Bureau of InvestigationDy.SPOffice Memorandumtransferpromotion
Judgment
(2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 571
...
DIRECTOR, C.B.I. & ANR. A
v.
D.P. SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 1485 of 2003)
DECEMBER 16, 2009
B
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.)
- ~
Service law - Seniority - Absorption of person after being
on deputation - Fixation of seniority ~,Held: Officer who
initially comes on deputation and is subsequently absorbed, c
gets his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed from
the date of absorption - Seniority of person already holding
the same or equivalent grade in his parent department on
regular basis is counted from the date he was holding same
_y or equivalent grade in his parent department - On facts, D
respondent-officer did not hold the rank of Dy. S.P. or
equivalent post in his parent department on the date of his
appointment as Dy.S.P. on ad-hoc basis in 1977 or at the
time of his absorption in 1987, thus, his seniority in Dy.SP.
is to be counted from the date of his absorption - Respondent E
could have been absorbed only after receipt of
recommendation from UPSC, thus, ~eriod during which
~\ respondent worked as Dy.SP. in CBI on officiating basis prior
• to his absorption, cannot be counted - Office Memorandum
dated May 29, 1986 - Sub-para (iv).
F
Respondent joined CBI as Sub-Inspector on
deputation from State Police Service. Thereafter, he was
appointed to the post of Inspector by CBI against
deputation quota. He continued to be on deputation with
CBI. On November 24, 1977 he was appointed to the post G
, " of Dy.S.P. on officiating basis. He was absorbed as
Dy.S.P. in CBI with effect from June 29, 1987. Until his
absorption, he continued his lien in the parent department
and was not promoted to the post of Dy.S.P. in the parent
571 H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
~-
A department. Respondent claimed his seniority from the
date of his initial appointment to the post of Dy.S.P. in
CBl-i.e. from November 24, 1977. Tribunal dismissed the
application. Review application was also dismissed. High
Court allowed the writ petition. It directed that his
B seniority to the post of Dy.S.P. should be counted from
November 24, 1977 in place of June 29, 1987. Hence the
present appeal.
~ .
Allowing the appeal, the Court
c HELD: 1.1. The plain reading of sub-para (iv) of Office
Memorandum dated May 29, 1986 would show that it
provides that a deputationist whose services are
absorbed later would get his seniority in the grade in
which he is absorbed normally from the date of his
D absorption. However, in a case of person who has already
been holding the same or equivalent grade in his parent '
department on regular basis, his seniority shall be
counted from the date he was holding same or equivalent
grade in his parent department. In the instant case,
E respondent did not hold the rank of Dy.S.P. or the
equivalent post in his parent department on the date of
his appointment as Dy.S.P. on ad-hoc basis in 1977 or at
the time of his absorption in 1987 and, therefore, his
seniority in Dy.S.P. can only be counted from the date of ..
F his absorption, i.e., June 29, 1987. If the construction put
up by respondent to sub-para (iv) that since the
respondent has been holding the post of Dy.S.P. in CBI
since November 24, 1977, as per sub-para (iv), his
seniority from the date he has been holding such post
must be counted, is accepted, it would render the first
G
part of sub-para (iv), viz., "in the case of a person which
is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later-where 1 •
the relevant recruitment rules provide for transfer on
deputation/transfer, his seniority in the grade in which he
is absorbed will n,·(mally be counted from the date of
H
DIRECTOR, C.B.I. & ANR. v. D.P. SINGH 573
-)
absorption," redundant and surplussage. Such A
construction would be against the basic rule of
construction that language of the statute should be read
as it is and a construction which results in rejection of
words as redundant must be avoided. [Para 15] [583-B-
G] B
1.2. Respondent was appointed as Dy.S.P. on
----+ officiating basis by CBI in 1977 and he continued as
such until his absorption in 1987, the said period should
not be taken into account for considering his se.niority. C
It is so because sub-para (iv) of Office Memorandum,
plainly provides that date of absorption, ordinarily, would
be the date from which seniority in the grade is to be
reckoned. In the instant case, no departure from the said
position is possible as the respondent was not holding
./ the post of Dy.S.P. or equivalent post in his parent D
department anytime prior to his absorption. Initial
appointment as Dy.S.P. was purely on ad-hoc basis and
there is nothing to indicate that his selection was
according to Rules. Respondent could have been
absorbed only after receipt of recommendation from E
UPSC. Thus, the period during which the respondent
worked as Dy.S.P. in CBI on officiating basis prior to his
, absorption, cannot be counted. The impugned judgment
' is set aside. There is no infirmity in the view of the
tribunal. [Paras 17 and 18] (584-D-H; 585-A, D, E] F
K. Madhavan and Another v. Union of India and Ors.
(1987) 4 SCC 566; Direct Recruit Class II Engineering
Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1990)
2 SCC 715; Union of India and Anr. v. Harish Chander Bhatia G
and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 48; Sub-Inspector Roop/a/ and Anr.
r ~ v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Ors. (2000)
1 sec 644, distinguished.
Rameshwar Prasad v. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya
Nirman Nigam Limited and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 381; R.S. H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
.\-
A Makashi v. l.M. Menon (1982) 1 SCC 379; Wing Commander
J. Kumar v. Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 116; Aswini Kumar
Ghose v. Arabinda Bose AIR 1952 SC 369, referred to.
Case Law Reference:
B (1999) s sec 381 Referred to. Para 13
(2000) 1 sec 644 Distinguished. Para 14
+- .
(1982) 1 sec 379 Referred to. Para 14
c (1982) 2 sec 116 Referred to. Para 14
AIR 1952 SC 369 Referred to. Para 15
(1987) 4 sec 566 Distinguished. Para 16
(1990) 2 sec 115 Distinguished. Para 17
D 'i
(1995) 2 sec 48 Distinguished. Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1485 of 2003.
E From the Judgment & Order dated 8.3.2002 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.W.P. No. 7575 of 1999.
P.P. Malhotra, AAG, P.K. Dey (for P. Parmeswaran) for
the Appellant.
,,
F Rakesh K. Khanna, Brij Bhusan, Sunil Kumar for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed
G
against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated March
-f •
8, 2002 whereby· writ petition preferred by the present
respondent was allowed and it was directed that his seniority
to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) should
be counted from November 24, 1977 in place of June 29, 1987.
H
DIRECTOR, C.B.I. & ANR. v. D.P. SINGH 575
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
+
2. D. P. Singh-respondent-joined U. P. Police Service on A
February 16, 1964 as Sub-Inspector. On May 11, 1966, he was
sent on deputation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
as Sub-Inspector. While he was on deputation, he was
appointed to the post of Inspector on.December 31, 1970
against deputation quota as per the then existing Special B
Police Establishment (Executive Staff) Recruitment Rules, 1963
(for short, 'Rules, 1963'). He continued to be on deputation with
- -t CBI and vide Order dated November 24, 1977, he was
appointed to the post of Dy. S.P. on ad-hoc basis. He appears
to have exercised his option for absorption to the post of c
Dy.S.P. in CBI in 1980 and the request for absorption also
seems to have been accepted in 1983 but no formal order was
issued and it was only vide order dated May 15, 1995 that
respondent was absorbed in the service of CBI and appointed
__ / as Dy.S.P. on transfer basis with effect from June 29, 1987 on
D
the recommendation of Union Public Service Commission
(UPSC) and as per the guidelines issued by Department of
Personnel and Training (DOPT) vide Office Memorandum
dated May 29, 1986. The respondent, however, made
representation and claimed his seniority with effect from
November 24, 1977 when he was initially appointed to the post E
of Dy.S.P. in CBI. No favorable response on his representation
was received by the respondent. He, then, approached Central
~ ' Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi by
filing original application praying therein that direction be issued
to the present appellants to fix his seniority in the grade of F
Dy.S.P. with effect from November 24, 1977 in place of Juoe
29, 1987.
3. On February 3, 1998, CAT dismissed original
~ - application filed by the present respondent. The respondent
sought review of the order dated February 3, 1998 from the
G
' " CAT but the review application, too, was dismissed on
September 10, 1999.
4. The present respondent aggrieved by the aforesaid
H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R
.\·
A orders of CAT, filed writ petition before the High Court which,
as indicated above, has been allowed by the impugned order.
5. We heard Mr. P.P. Malhotra, Additional Solicitor
General for the appellants and Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Senior
Counsel for the respondent at quite some length.
B
6. It is important to notice here that although respondent
joined CBI as Sub-Inspector on May 11, 1966 on deputation
from U.P. Police and he continued to be on deputation for more
t.
-
than two decades and during this period he was appointed by
c CBI on next higher posts, viz; Inspector and Dy.S.P. but until
his absorption as Dy.S.P. in CBI with effect from June 29, 1987,
he continued his lien in the parent department and was not
promoted to the post of Dy.S.P. in U.P. Police (i.e. his parent
department).
D
7. In this backdrop, we deem it appropriate to reproduce ~
.-
the order dated December 26, 1977 whereby the respondent
was appointed to officiate as Dy.S.P. with effect from
November 24, 1977.
E "F.No.A-19036/11/77-Ad.V
Govt. of India
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Deptt. of Personnel & A.R.,
)'
Central Bureau of Investigation
F Kotah House Hutments,
New Delhi.
Dated 26 Dec 1977
NOTIFICATION
G (TO BE PUBLISHED IN GAZETIE OF INDIA PART Ill
SEC.I) ~
~
. '
The director, Central Bureau of Investigation and
Inspector General of Police, Special Police Establishment
H hereby appoints Shri D.P. Singh, Inspector of Police, C.B.I.
DIRECTOR, C.B.I. & ANR. v. D.P. SINGH 577
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
CIU (II), Branch and an officer of Uttar Pradesh Police A .
Deptt. to officiate as Dy. Supdt. of Police in Central Bureau
of Investigation, Special Police Establishment with effect
from the forenoon of 24.11. 77 in a temporary capacity until
further order.
/
(V.P ............... ) B
Administrative Officer (E)
Central Bureau of Investigation."
8. Rules, 1963 have been made by the President in
exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 C
of the Constitution. These rules apply to the post of
Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police
in the Special Police Establishment. Inter alia, Schedule
appended thereto provides that post of Deputy Superintendent
of Police which is classified as General Central Service Group,
gazetted and non-ministerial post, shall be filled in by selection. D
The schedule provides for quota for selection to the post of Dy.
S.P. for deputationists. There is a note appended to the
Schedule for the post of Superintendent of Police and Deputy
- Superintendent of Police which provides that when these posts
are held by deputation by officers of the State or Central
Government Department, these posts will be treated as tenure
E
posts. The note further provides that deputationists will not be
eligible for promotion in the quota shown against the higher
posts but if they are otherwise suitable and if vacancies are
available, such deputationists may be appointed against F
deputation quota.
9. Rules, 1963 were amended in 1972 whereby in columns
10 and 11 in Schedule the following provisions were made :
"Column 10: G
(a) Promotion - 30 per cent failing which by transfer
on deputation failing both by direct recruitment.
(b) Transfer/deputation-50 per cent failing which by H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
~-
A direct recruitment.
(c) Direct recruitment-20 per cent in consultation with
the Union Public Service Commission."
Column 11:
B
Inspector of Police in the Central Bureau of
Investigation with 5 years service in the grade +- .
rendered after appointment thereto on a regular
basis.
c Transfer/deputation:
Suitable officers of the State or Central Government
Department who are holding equivalent posts or
who, though holding posts in the next lower grade,
() are officer approved for promotion to equivalent "
posts,
Deputation:
E
Deputationist Inspector in the Central Bureau of
Investigation who have put in at least 5 years
-
service in the rank in the State/Central Bureau of
Investigation out of which at least 3 years is in the
>
Central Bureau of Investigation. ,
F (Period of deputation ordinarily not exceeding 5
years)."
10. Further amendment was brought in the Rules, 1963 as
amended in 1972 by amendment Rules, 1987.
G 11. On May 29, 1986, an Office Memorandum was issued
by Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT), Government
~ .
of India dealing with the subject of seniority of persons
absorbed after being on deputation whereby sub-para (iv) to
para 7 of earlier Office Memorandum dated December 22,
H 1959 was added. Since the whole controversy centres around
DIRECTOR, C.B.I. & ANR. v. D.P: SINGH 579
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
~>
this Office Memorandum, we deem it appropriate to reproduce A
it as it is :
"No. 20020/7/80-Estt(D)
Government of India/Bharat Sarkar
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training '8
New Delhi, the 29th May, 1986
----i OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject : Seniority of persons absorbed after being on c
deputation.
The undersigned is directed to say that the existing
instructions on seniority of transferees contained in paras
7 of the Annexure to this Department's O.M. No. 9/11/55-
- _/ RPs dated the 22nd December, 1959 (copy enclosed) QI
mainly deal with cases where persons are straight way
appointed on transfer. It is, however, observed that most
of the cases of permanent absorption are those where the
officers were taken on deputation initially under the method
of 'transfer on deputation/transfer' contained in the relevant E
recruitment rules. This O.M. is intended to fill this gap in
the existing instructions.
(
2. Even in the type of cases mentioned above, that is,
where an officer initially comes on deputation and is F
subsequently absorbed, the normal principle that the
seniority should be counted from the date of such
absorption, should mainly apply. Where, however, the
officer has already been holding on the· date of absorption
in the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his
G
. "" parent department, it would be equitable and appropriate
that such regular service in the grade should also be taken
into account in determining his seniority subject only to the
condition that at the most it would be only from the date of
deputation to the grade in which absorption is being made.
H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A It has also to be ensured that the fixation of seniority of a
" "
transferee in accordance with the above principle will not
affect any regular promotions made prior to the date of
absorption. Accordingly, it has been decided to add the
following sub-para (iv) to para 7 of general principles
B communicated vide O.M. dated 22nd December, 1959:
"(iv) In the case of a person which is initially taken
t .
on deputation and absorbed later (i.e. where the
relevant recruitment rules provide for transfer on
deputation/transfer"), his seniority in the grade in
c which he is absorbed will normally be counted from
the date of absorption. -If he has, however, been
holding already (on the date of absorption) the
same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his
parent department, such regular service in the
D grade shall also be taken into account in fixing his "
seniority, subject to the condition that he will be
given seniority from.
the date he has been holding the post on
E deputation,
or
~
the date from which he has been appointed
on a regular basis to the same or equivalent
F grade in his parent department, whichever is
later.
The fixation of seniority of a transferee in
accordance with the above principle will not,
however, affect any regular promotions to the
G
next higher grade made prior to the date of ~ .
such absorption. In other words, it will be
operative only in filling up of vacancies in
higher grade taking place after such
absorption.
H
DIRECTOR, C.B.I. & ANR. v. D.P. SINGH 581
[RM. LODHA, J.]
-~
In cases in which transfers are not strictly in A
public interest, the transferred officers will be
placed below all officers appointed regularly
to the grade on the date of absorption."
3. All the Ministries/Departments are requested kindly to
B
bring these instructions to the notice of all concerned in the
Ministries/Departments and Attached and Subordinate
'-""' Offices under them for their guidance and to ensure their
compliance.
4. These orders will not be applicable to transfers within c
the Indian Audit and Accounts Department which are
governed by orders issued by the C & A.G. from time to
time.
5. Hindi version is attached.
• 0
Sd/-
(K.S.R. Krishna Roa)
Deputy Secretary to the
Government of India."
12. Mr. P.P. Malhotra, Additional Solicitor General urged E
that since the respondent was not Dy.S.P. in his parent
department in 1977 nor was he holding equivalent grade of
i
Dy.S.P. on regular basis in his parent department (U.P.
Service), his seniority in the grade of Dy.S.P. has to be counted
from June 29, 1987 when he was absorbed. He, thus, submitted F
that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable in the light
of sub-para (iv) as mentioned in O.M. dated May 29, 1986.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, learned
Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that since the
G
' ~ \-' respondent has been holding the post of Dy.S.P. in CBI since
November 24, 1977, as per sub-para (iv), his seniority from the
date he has been holding such post must be counted. He relied
upon decisions of this court in the case of K. Madhavan and
H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
-\ ~
A Another v. Union of India and Others1 , Direct Recruit Class II
Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and
Others2, Union of India and Another v. Harish Chander Bhatia
and Others3 and Rameshwar Prasad v. Managing Director,
U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited and Others4 • He also
B submitted that part of the Office Memorandum dated May 29,
1986 has been declared unconstitutional by this Court in Sub-
Inspector Roop/al and Another v. Lt. Governor through Chief
Secretary, Delhi and Others5.
....
14. The question involved in the case of sub-Inspector
c Roop/af' was whether a Sub-Inspector, who was appointed as
such in the Border Security Force when transferred on
deputation to the Delhi Police in the cadre of Sub-inspector
(Executive) on being permanently absorbed with the transferred
post, was entitled to count his substantive service as Sub-
D Inspector in BSF for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of
Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police or not. While
dealing with the aforesaid question, this Court referred to long
line of cases and, particularly, relying upon the decisions of this
Court in R.S. Makashi v. J.M. Menon6. and Wing Commander
E J. Kumar v. Union of lndia7 held that right of deputationist to
count his service for the purpose of seniority in the transferred
department was well settled and, therefore, when a
deputationist is absorbed in a department, he would certainly
have expected that his seniority in the parent department would
F be counted. The court, however, clarified that if the previous
service of a transferred official is to be counted for seniority in
the transferred post, then two posts should be equivalent. This
1. (1987) 4 sec 566.
G 2. (1990) 2 sec 715.
3. (1995) 2 sec 48.
4. (1999) 8 sec 381. "" " '
5. (2000) 1 sec 644.
6. (1982) 1 sec 379.
H 7 (1982) 2 sec 116.
...
DIRECTOR, C.B.I. & ANR. v. D.P. SINGH 583
- ,. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
Court, however, declared the expression "whichever is later'' A
unconstitutional. The judgment of this Court in Sub-Inspector
Roopla/5 is of no help to the respondent as he did not hold the
post of Dy. S.P. or equivalent post in his parent department at
the time of transfer or absorption.
B
15. As a matter of fact, the plain reading of sub-para (iv)
. ,., which has been added to earlier O.M. dated December 22,
1959 vide O.M. dated May 29, 1986 would show that it provides
that a deputationist whose services are absorbed later would
get his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed normally
from the date of his absorption. However, in a case of person
c
who has already been holding the same or equivalent grade in
his parent department on regular basis, his seniority shall be
counted from the date he was holding same or equivalent grade
-,
.. in his parent department. Insofar as the present case is
concerned, admittedly, respondent did not hold the rank of D
Dy.S.P. or the equivalent post in his parent department on the
date of his appointment as Dy.S.P. on ad-hoc basis in 1977
or at the time of his absorpti<?n in 1987 and, therefore, his
seniority in Dy.S.P. can only be counted from the date of his
absorption, i.e., June 29, 1987. If the construction put by the E
learned Senior Counsel for the respondent to sub-para (iv) is
accepted, it would render the first part of sub-para (iv), viz., "In
" the case of a person which is initially taken on deputation and
absorbed later (i.e. where the relevant recruitment rules provide
for transfer on deputation/transfer), his seniority in the grade in F
which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of
absorption," redundant and surplussage. Such construction
would be against the basic rule of construction that language
of the statute should be read as it is and a construction which
results in rejection of words as redundant must be avoided. In G
.> 'r Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose8 , this Court observed
that it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside
words in a statute as being inapposite surplussage, if they can
have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably
8. AIR 1952 SC 369. H
·-
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A within the contemplation of the statute.
. -
16. In K. Madhavan1, this Court, while holding that
'deputation' may be regarded as a 'transfer' from one
government department to another, reiterated that transfer
B cannot wipe out length of service in the post from which an
employee has been transferred and if a government servant
holding a particular post is transferred to the same or equivalent ~ .
post in another government department, the period of his
service in the post before his transfer ought to be taken into
C consideration. This legal position admits of no doubt but the
respondent herein did not hold the post of Dy.S.P. or equivalent
grade on regular basis in his parent department prior to his
absorption and, therefore, the principle laid down in K.
Madhavan 1 has no application.
D 17. It is true that respondent was appointed as Dy.S.P. on •
officiating basis by CBI in 1977 and he continued as such until
his absorption in 1987, the question is, should the said period
be taken into account for considering his seniority. The answer,
in our opinion, has to be in the negative. It is so because sub-
E para (iv) of Office Memorandum as quoted above plainly
provides that date of absorption, ordinarily, would be the date
from which seniority in the grade is to be reckoned. In the
present case, no departure from the aforesaid position is •
possible as the respondent was not holding the post of Dy.S.P.
F or equivalent post in his parent department anytime priorto his
absorption. The two decisions in Direct Recruit Class II
Engineering Officers' Association2 and Harish Chander
Bhatia3 heavily relied upon by the Senior Counsel for the
respondent, in our view, are not of much help to the respondent
G because his initial appointment as Dy.S.P. was purely on ad-
hoc basis and there is nothing to indicate that his selection was --1 ,
according to Rules. As a matter of fact, the respondent could
have been absorbed only after receipt of recommendation from
UPSC. Thus, the period during which the respondent worked
as Dy.S.P. in CBI on officiating basis prior to his absorption,
H
DIRECTOR, C.B.I. & ANR. v. D.P. SINGH 585
.f [R.M. LODHA, J.]
in our considered view, cannot be counted. The Tribunal in this A
regard held thus:
"3. We are of the view so long as the applicant could claim
no lien on the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police in
C.B.I., he could not claim any seniority in C.B.I. After he
B
was absorbed on 9.11.1994, he could claim lien on that
' ..., post and the earlier lien with U.P. Police would cease to
exist from that date. Accordingly, we find no merit in the
claim of the applicant for his seniority from 1977 as Dy.
Superintendent of Police in C.B.I. Further, the claim also
appears to be barred by time. If the applicant considered
c
himself entitled to seniority from 1977, he ought to have
come immediately after the date he was denied seniority
by the respondents."
~
We find no infirmity in the aforesaid view of the Tribunal. D
18. For the foregoing reasons, appeal deserves to be
allowed and is allowed. The judgment dated March 8, 2002
impugned in the present appeal is set aside. Parties shall bear
their own costs.
ElI
N.J. Appeal allowed.
-. '
; 'r
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "seniority"Sign in to search