JOYACHAN M. SEBASTIANversusTHE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 937
- Decided
- 23 August 1996
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
Seniority is to be reckoned from the date of the fresh appointment after abolition of the original post, not from the initial appointment.
Summary
Joyachan M. Sebastian was initially appointed as Clerk Grade‑II at the Doordarshan Television Station, Kohima on 21 September 1983. The post was abolished on 8 June 1983 and he was transferred, at his option, to the Doordarshan Kendra, Salem on 6 August 1984, and later, at his request, to Trivandrum on 26 March 1987. He claimed seniority from his original appointment date, but had undertaken not to claim seniority accrued at Salem. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected his claim, and the Supreme Court examined whether the abolition of his post entitled him to seniority from the original date or whether the subsequent posting constituted a fresh appointment. The Court held that when a post is abolished, the employee’s accommodation in another vacancy is a fresh appointment for seniority purposes, and he must take seniority as the junior‑most among confirmed employees in the new region. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to seniority from his initial appointment on 21 September 1983 or from the date of his later transfer to Trivandrum on 26 March 1987.
Subjects
Judgment
JOYACHAN M. SEBASTIAN A
v.
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND ORS.
'
AUGUST 23, 1996
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) B
Service Law-Seniority-Reckoning of-Employee-Initial appointment
at Kohima-Abolition of post-Subsequent to abolition of post employee
transfen·ed and posted at his option to Tamil Nadu Doordarsha11 at Salem
Kendra-Further transfer to Triva11d1um at liis own request-Undertaking by C
employee that he would not claim his seniority at Salem station:-Claim for
seniority from the date of initial appointment at Kohima-Rejection by
T1ibu11arAppeal-Held T1ibunal was 1ight in rejecting the claim of seniority
from initial appointment-On abolition of post holder of post has 110 right. to
continue 011 that post-His accommodation in· an available vacancy must be D
deemed to be a fresh appointment for the purposes of seniority-Employee
- would take his seni01ity as junionnost among the confimied employees in the
transfe"ed regimt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11481 of E
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.7.94 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribuna_l in Erm1kulam Bench in 0.A. No. 932 of 1994.
E.M.S. Anain for the Appellant
F
T.C. Sharma and B.K. Prasad for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
G
We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.
The only question for consideration is : whether the appellant is
entitled to seniority from September 21, 1983 when after passing the All
India. Clerk Grade-II Examination he was posted as Clerk Grade-II at H
193
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
· - A Television Station, Kohima or from March 26, 1987 when he was
transferred to and posted at the Television Station, Trivandrum?
The admitted position is that after his initial appointment on
September 21, 1983, the post which he was holding came to be abolished
on account of administrative exigencies, on June 8, 1983. Thereupon, he
B was transferred and posted at his option to Tamil Nadu Doordarshan
Kendra to Salem on August 6, 1984. He was further transferred to
Trivandrum at his request on March 26, 1987. It is seen that when the
seniority list was prepared as per the order of appointment, his seniority
was shown not from the date of his initial appointment at Kohima.
C Therefore, he filed OA in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Er-
nakulam Bench. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated July 6, 1994
made in OA No. 932 of 1994 dismissed the same. Thus this appeal by
special leave.
D It is also not in dispute that he has mentioned in his application
for transfer to Doordarshan Kendra, Trivandrum that he would not claim
his seniority held in Salem w.e.f. August 19, 1984.
Shri E.M.S. Anam, learned counsel for the appellant contended that
since the transfer had come to be made due to administrative exigencies,
E
viz., abolition of the post and creation of the post and availability of the
vacancy in Tamil Nadu, the transfer was not on account of the request
made by the appellant and that, therefore, the seniority had to be
reckoned from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., September 21,
1983. We find no force in the contention.
F
It is now settled legal posited that no abolition of the post, the
holder of the post has no right to continue on the post. Instead of
retrenching him as surplus, the Government have accommodated him in
the available vacancy and, therefore, it must be deemed to be a fresh
G appointment for the purposes of seniority. After joining in Salem in Tamil
Nadu, he made a request for transfer to Trivandrum and it is at his
request that he was transferred. Consequently, on his undertaking in the
application that he would not claim his seniority at Salem Station, the
transfer was effected at his request. It is settled legal position that he
H would take his seniority as junior-most among the confirmed employees
J.M. SEBASTIAN v. DIRECTOR GENERAL 195
in the transferee-region. A
Considered from this perspective, we are of the view that the
Tribunal has not committed any error of law warranting interference.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
B
T.N.A Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.