SH. NARAYAN YESHWANT GOREversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                        SH. NARAYAN YESHWANT GORE                                    A
                                      v.
·~                         UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                    APRIL 26, 1995
                                                                                     B
                  [R.M. SAHA! AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]

             Service Law :

             Employee-Deputation-Continuation for a long period with concur-
       rence ofparent department-During deputation short term vacancies occurring    c
       in parent Department-Such vacancies filled by ad-hoc promotions-No
       proforma promotion to employee on deputation-On repatriation to parent
       department employee promoted on ad-hoc basis-Deemed substantive ap-
       pointment of ad-hoc employees in view of a judicial pronounce-
       ment-fl.epatriated employee treated as substantively appointed from date of   D
       repatriation-Held benefit of judicial pronouncement should be extended to
       repatriated employee alscr-He should be deemed to have been confirmed
       from the date of his juniors were confirmed.

              The appellant working in the National Sample Survey Organisation
       went on deputation on 6th March, 1961 as Tabulation Officer to the E
        Census Department where he worked npto 21st October, 1969 and was
        promoted as Assistant Director of Census with the concurrence of the
        parent department and the UPSC. During deputation, he was considered
        for promotion In his parent department but as there were only short term
        vacancies no post was offered to him nor was he asked to come back to his F
        department. Consequently, he continued in the Census department till 31st
        December, 1974. During this period while his juniors were promoted on
       ·ad-hoc basis in his parent department he was not given proforma promo·
        tion. However, on his repatriation, he was appointed as Assistant Director
        on 11.4.1975 on ad-hoc basis. In the meantime in view of the judgment of
        this Court in Narendra Chadha v. Union of India, [1986] 1 SCR 211 the G
       appellants' juniors who were appointed between 1969 and 1975 on ad-hoc
        basis were deemed to have been substantively appointed from the date of
 ,+-    their ad-hoc appointments as a result of which they became senior to the
        appellant who was substantively appointed from the date of his repatria·
        tion. The appellant approached the Administrative-Tribunal claiming the H
                                            803
    804                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A   same relief which was granted to the persons similarly situated on the
    basis of the decision in Narendra Chadha's case but the same was denied
    Hence thi• appeal.

         Allowing the appeal and setting aside the Tribunal's order, this
    Court
B
          HELD : 1. The appellant was similarly situated along with those who
    were granted benefit by this Court. The benefit given in Narendra Chadha
    therefore, should be extended to him and he too should be deemed to have
    been working as Assistant Director on ad-hoc basis in the parent Depart-
C   ment since October, 1969. He should be deemed to have been confirmed
    from the date his junior was confirmed. Since one of the juniors of the
    appellant was promoted as ad-hoc on 22nd May, 1986 after the decision
    was given by this Court calculating his seniority from 1969 and he was
    given promotion in 1986 as Deputy Director with effect from 17.3.1983, the
    appellant too shall be deemed to have been promoted as Deputy Director
D   from 17.3.1983. As the appellant has retired be shall be entitled to all the
    benefits which flow from this order. (806-C-F]

          Narendra Chadha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., f1986] 1 SCR 211,
    relied on.

E           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2896 of
    1989.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.83 of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal, in T.A. No. 493 of 1986.
F           A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant.

         A.N. Jay Ram, Additional Solicitor General, C.V. Subba Rao, T.C.
    Sharma and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
          This appeal is directed agaiost the order passed by the Central
    Administrative Tribunal rejecting the petition filed by the appellant for
    granting and extendiog to him the same benefits as were granted to the
    persons similarly situate in view of the decision given by this Court in
H   Narender Chadha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in [1986] 1 SCR
\


                     NARAYANYESHWANTGOREv. U.0.l.                            805

    211.                                                                            A

           The brief facts that are necessary to be mentioned are that the
    appellant joined National Sample Survey Organisation as Inspector on 25th
    July, 1950. He was promoted as a Scrutiny Inspector on 4th November,
    1954. He was further appointed as Assistant Superintendent in 1955. On          B
    6th March, 1961, he came to be deputed to the Census Department at
    Nagpur and worked there from 6th March, 1961 to 21st October, 1969 as
    a Tabulation Officer. Then he was granted proforma promotion ·in his
    parent department. Tbe post of Tabulator was subsequently redesignated
    as Superintendent. The appellant while working in the Census Department         C
    was promoted as Assistant Director of Census Department operation w.e.f.
    21st October, 1969 and continued till 31st December, 1974. While he was
    working there a question arose about his consideration in the present
    department. A letter dated 21st January, 1970 which has been extracted by
    the Tribunal indicates that department considered that since the appellant
    was in the Census Department and there were short-term vacancies only,          D
    it was not necessary to offer the post to the appellants or to ask him to
    come back to the Department. In these circumstances, he continued in
    Census Department. He could not be given even proforma promotion as
    there was no regular vacancy. But his appointment as Assistant Director
    in the Census Department was with the concurrence of the Census Depart-         E
    ment, parent Department and the Union Pnblic Service Commfasion. In
    1975, he came back to his parent Department and was appointed as
    Assistant Director on 11.4.1975 on ad-hoc basis. While he was on deputa-
    tion in the Census Department his juniors had also been promoted as
    ad-hoc in his parent Department. Some of them were appointed in 1969.           F
    On 11th February, 1986 the decision in Narender Chadha (supra) was
    rendered by this Court. It was held that all those officers who were
    appointed as Assistant Directors in the Organisation should be deemed to
    have been appointed substantively from the date of their ad-hoc appoint-
    ment. In consequence of this decision, those juniors who had been ap-
    pointed on ad-hoc basis in the parent Department between 1969-75 became         G
    senior to the appellant. Reason for it was that the decision has confined
    the applicability of benefit to only those who were working in the Depart-
    ment. Since the appellant was working in the Census Department and he
    was appointed ad-hoc in the parent Department from 1975, he was ap-
    pointed substantively from that date only. The appellant, therefore, was left   H
    with no option except to approach the Tribunal which has recorded every
    806                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A finding in favour of the appellant but expressed its inability to grant any
    relief as in view of the decision of this Court he could not be deemed to
    be ad-hoc appointee in the Department.

        The facts narrated above clearly indicate that the appellant was
  similarly situated alongwith those who were granted benefit by this Court.
B May be, he was working in the Census Department. But since the post in
  the Census Department and in the parent Department was ad-hoc post and
  the Depart.men! itself considered that his continuance in the Census
  Department did not affect him and, therefore, he was not offered the post
  of Assistant Director in the parent Department, he could not be                   >-
C prejudiced. The benefit given in Narender Chadha (supra), therefore,
  should be extended to the appellant and he too should be deemed to have
  been working as Assistant Director on ad-hoc basis in the parent Depart-
  ment in Grade IV since October, 1969. He should be deemed to have been
  confirmed from the date his junior was confirmed.

D         We further find that Sri Chaurasia, one of the juniors of the appellant
    was promoted as ad-hoc on 22nd May, 1986 after the decision was given
    by this Court calculating his seniority from 1969 and he was given promo-
    tion in 1986 as Deputy Director with effect from 17.3.1983. It is not
    disputed that the post of Deputy Director is a promotional post. It is not
E   a selection post. Since the appellant was senior to Shri Chaurasia who was
    promoted as Deputy Director from 1983, the appellant too shall be deemed
    to have been promoted as Deputy Director from 17.3.83.

          The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set
    aside. The claim petition of the appellant succeeds in the manner indicated
F   above.

           We are informed that the appellant has retired. He shall be entitled
    to all the benefits which flow from this order. There shall be no order as
    to costs.

    T.N.A.                                                      Appeal allowed.