Holding

The Tribunal correctly applied the Ministry of Defence circulars of 19‑Nov‑1983 and 28‑Aug‑1985, which exclude casual service from seniority, and the later circular does not alter that rule.

Summary

The appellants, initially hired as temporary casual skilled fitters and later regularised, were promoted to Highly Skilled Fitters Grade‑II based on seniority that included their casual service. The respondents, who had been regular skilled fitters since the early 1980s, challenged these promotions before the Central Administrative Tribunal, arguing that casual service should not count for seniority. The Tribunal relied on Ministry of Defence circulars dated 19‑Nov‑1983 and 28‑Aug‑1985, which state that seniority for casual employees begins only from the date of regular appointment, and quashed the promotions. The appellants appealed, contending that a later circular dated 26‑Jun‑1995 modified the earlier policy to allow casual service to be counted. The Supreme Court held that the 1995 circular merely implemented a Tribunal judgment and did not repeal or alter the earlier circulars, so the Tribunal’s decision was correct. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the respondents senior to the appellants for promotion purposes.

Issues considered

Whether casual service period can be counted towards seniority for promotion under the Ministry of Defence circulars.
Whether the circular dated 26‑June‑1995 modifies or cancels the earlier circulars of 19‑Nov‑1983 and 28‑Aug‑1985.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in quashing the appellants' promotions.

Subjects

senioritycasual serviceregularisationpromotionMinistry of Defence circularsservice lawadministrative law

Judgment

K. TRIMURTHULU AND ORS. A
v.
M.V.N. MURTHY AND ORS.

FEBURARY 11, 1998

[ S.SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) B

Service Law : Seniority : Ministry of Defence Circulars dt. 19.11.831
28.8.85-Fixation ofseniority without counting the period of casual service-
The appellants cannot be treated senior to the respondents on the basis of
the casual service rendered prior to regularisation-The subsequent circular C
dated 26.6.95-Did not modiJY or cancel the earlier·circulars.

The appellants, who joined initially as Temporary casual Skilled Fitters
and were subsequently regularis~d, were promoted as Highly Skilled Fitters
Grade-11 by the Naval Dockyard Notifications dt 22.9.84 and 20.2.85. The D
respondents challenged the promotions in the Central Administrative Tribunal,
contending that though they joined as skilled Fitters earlier to the appellants, .
the Naval Dockyard was not justified in treating the appellants, as senior to
them by including the period of their casual service as regular service for
the purpose of seniority. The Tribunal quashed the promotions on the basis
of two circulars issued by the Ministry of Defence which provided that the E
seniority of casual employees would be reckoned from the date of their
regular appointment and also directed the authority of consider the promotion
of the respondents. Hence this appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. The Tribunal did not commit any error in reckoning the F
seniority of the appellants from the date of their regular appointment and had
acted strictly in accordance with the Circular Letters issued by the Ministry
of Defence dt 19.11.83 and 28.8.85. Since it was the consistent policy of the
Ministry of Defence that benefit of seniority would be allowed to the casual
employees only with effect from the date on which.they were appointed on
regular basis and the period of casual service would not be counted towards G
seniority, the Tribunal was fully justified in recording the findings that the
respondents would be senior to the appellants and that the Naval Dockyard
was in error in treating the appellants as senior to the respondents.
[809-H; 810-A]
2.1. The Circulars dt. 19.11.83 and 28.8.85 on which reliance had H
807
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A been placed by the Tribunal, had not been modified or cancelled by the
circular letter dt. 26.6.95, which only purported to im1>Iement the .iudgment ~, ._
of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal. That being so, there is no infirmity
in the .iudgment of the Tribunal. [810-E]

2.2. H the appellants are entitled to any benefit other than the benefit
B of seniority, on the basis of the Circular letter dt. 26.6.95 the Government
may, if approached, consider the cases of the appellants for that limited
purpose-. (810-F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 880of1994.

C From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.93 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Hyderabed in 0.A. No. 665of1990.

Mrs. K. .Sarda Devi for the Appellants.

K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha G.Nair, C. Balasubramani, Y.S. Rao, Santi
D Narayanan and R.N. Poddar for the1 Respondents. ,. _

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:
•
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. The appellants before us who challenge the
judgment and order dated 2nd April, 1993 passed by the Central Administrative
E Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench were directly recruited on their names being
sponsored by the Employment Exchange. They were initially appointed as
Temporilry Casual Skilled Fitters but were subsequently regularised on or
after 15.583 on different dates. These appellants were also allowed to appear
in the Departmental Qualifying Examination for promotion to the posts of
Highly Skilled Fitter Grade-II which they passed and were, therefore, promoted,
F some with effect from 6.7.84 vide Naval Dockyard Notification dated 22.9.84 ·~
I
while others with effect from 1.2.85 vide Notification dated 20.2.85.

2.- Both these Notifications were challenged by the Respondents (Nos.
1-43) (for short. ~the respondents') before the Tribunal on several grounds
including that the appellants could not be treated as senior to them particularly
G as the respondents were admitted in tl1e Naval Dockyard Apprentices School,
Vishal<liapatnam and after qualifying in various Trade Tests, were absorbed
as Skilled Fitters on different dates between 12.11.79 and 27.1.83. It was
contended that since the respondents had been absorbed as Skilled Fitters
earlier than tlle appellants, they rank senior to them and tlle Admiral
H Superintend, Naval Dockyard (respondent No. 44) was not justified in treating
K. TRIMURTHULU v. M.V.N. MURTHY [S. SAGIRAHMAD, J.) 809
the appellants as senior to the respondents by including the period of their A
r,,-J. casual seivice as regular seivice for purpose of seniority.

3. Naval Dockyard did not dispute the contention of the respondents
that the appellants were promoted to the posts of Highly Skilled Fitter Grade-
II on the basis of their seniority over the respondents by taking into account
the period of their casual se!Vice. B
4. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, ,allowed the claim of the
respondents by obseiving as under:-

" Since it is noi: denied that the promotion of the private respondents
to the disadvantage of the applicants was done on account of seniority c
conferred on the private respondents taking into the account their
casual se!Vice, we quash the promotion orders dt. 22.9.84 and 20.2.85
and direct the respondents to consider the pronmtion of the applicants
( if not already done) in the light of the cotrclusions above. Thereafter,
the seniority in the promotion cadre shall be arranged in such a matter
~ D
that it reflects the discrimination in the grade of Skilled Fitters in
.which cadre the Casual seivices rendered is to be ignored. The
application i~ disposed of this with no orders as to costs.

5. A perusal of the judgment passed by the Tribunal would indicate that
the entire period of casual seivice of the appellants was excluded and their E
seniority was counted from the date of their regular adoption. For. this purpose,
the Tribunal placed reliance upon the Circular letter bearing No. 4(1)/83/D/C-
IVnI dt. 19.11.83 issued.by the Ministry of Defence wherein ii was provided
that persons employed on continuous casual basis would become eligible for
seniority and promotion ·to the higher grade on the date on which their
..... seivices are regularised. It was also provided in that Circular that the period F
of continuous casual seivice would not be counted for seniority and promotion.
Another Circular letter of the Naval Dockyard, which was relied upon by the
Tribunal, is the letter dated 28.8.85 in which it was again clarified that seniority
of casual employees would be reckoned from the date of their regular
appointment.
G
6. We have gone through both the Circulars and are satisfied that the
,. )" Tribunal while laying down that the seniotity of the appellants could be
reckoned from the date of their regular appointment did not commit any error
and has acted strictly in accordance with the Circular letters issued by the
Ministry of Defence. Since it was the consistent policy of the Ministry of H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] I S.C.R.

A Defence that benefit of seniority would be allowed to casual employees only
with effect from the date on which they are appointed on regular basis and
that tl1e period of casual service would not be counted towards seniority, the
Tribunal was fully justified in recording the findings that the respondents
would be senior to the appellants and that the Naval Dockyard was in error
B in treating the appellants as senior.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended before us that the
Bombay Bench of the Tribunal has already held that the casual workers, on
their regularisation, would be entitled to reckon their seniority with effect from
the date of their initial appointment and the entire period of casual service
C would be available to them for being added to the length of their service for
determining their seniority. In order to implement the judgment of the Bombay
Bench of Tribunal, the Ministry of Defence itself issued a Circular letter dated
26.6.95 in which it has been stated that the benefit of casual service, rendered
by the employees of the Naval Dockyard, up to the date of their regularisation,
would be available to them. It is contended that this benefit has also to be
D given to the appellants and, therefore, they would rank senior to the
respondents.

8. The copy of the judgment passed by the Bombay Bench of the
Tribunal had not been filed before us nor do we know the exact issues
involved therein. Moreover, the earlier Circulars dated 19.11.83 and 28.8.85, on
E which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment,
have not been modified or cancelled by the Circular letter dated 26.6.95 which
only purports to implement the judgment of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal.
That being so, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by tl1e
Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the observation that if the
F appellants are entitled to any benefit other than the benefits of seniority, on
the basis of circular letter dated 26.6. 95, the Government may, if approached, -(
consider the, cases of the appellants for that limited purpose.

H.K. Appeal dismissed.