Holding

The Court held that "posts" includes both cadre and ex‑cadre posts, and promotees are entitled to count the entire period of continuous service towards seniority.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined appeals filed by promotees of the Indian Statistical Service challenging a seniority list that excluded periods of service in "ex-cadre" posts. The issue arose from the earlier judgment in Narender Chadha v. Union of India (1986), where the Court had directed that promotees be treated as regular Grade IV officers and given seniority from the date of continuous officiation, but did not specify whether "posts" meant only cadre posts. The Court held that the term "posts" in the Chadha judgment was generic and encompassed both cadre and ex‑cadre positions, so the entire period of continuous service, irrespective of post type, must count towards seniority. It further observed that excluding such service would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal’s order, and dismissed the writ petition, confirming that promotees are regular members of the Service from the date of their continuous appointment.

Issues considered

Whether the expression "posts" in Narender Chadha v. Union of India includes ex‑cadre posts for the purpose of seniority.
Whether promotees are entitled to seniority based on continuous officiation in both cadre and ex‑cadre posts.
Whether excluding service in ex‑cadre posts violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16(1)
Indian Statistical Service Rules, 1961s. Rule 16, s. Rule 8, s. Rule 9C

Subjects

senioritypromotionIndian Statistical Servicecadre postex‑cadre postservice rulesconstitutional lawArticles 14 and 16interpretation of judgmentpromotees vs direct recruits

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC. A
~ v.
PRATAP NARAIN AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

APRIL 29, 1992

[KULDIP SINGH AND R.M. SARAI, JJ.] B
~
Civil Services-Indian Statistical Service Rules-Rules 8, 9C(a}-Grade
IV-Seniority-Fixation of-Interpretation of Judgment of Supreme Court in
..___ Narender Chadha's case [1986} 1 SCR 211-"Post''-<:onstruction of-
Whether includes cadre post or ex-cadre post. c
t
This Court in Narender Chadha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,
~/ [1986) 1 SCR 211 decided the dispute regarding seniority 'between
promotees and direct recruits belonging to Indian Economics Service and
the Indian Statistical Service and directed the Union Government, (i) to
treat all persons, stated to have been promoted contrary to Rules, having D
been regularly appointed to Grade IV of the Service; (ii) to assign them
seniority form the date of their continuous officiating in Grade IV posts;
and (iii) Even those promotees who were selected for regular promotion
in 1970, 1982 and 1984 to. be assigned seniority from the dates they
commenced officiation continuously in Grade IV prior to their selection. E

-r of Grade
The directions of this Court were implemented and a seniority list
IV of the Indian Statistical Service, was issued on May 8, 1986.

--
Consequent promotions to Grade III were made vide Notification dated
May 22, 1986.
F
The direct recruits in Grade IV of the Service challenged the
seniority list ·and the promotions before the Tribunal on the ground that
the seniority list was in violation of the directions of this Court in Narender
~-( Chadha's case, contending that the promotees who officiated against "cadre
posts" in the Service, alone were entitled to the benefit of the period
G
towards seniority and those who officiated against "Ex-cadre posts" were
not entitled to such benefit.

The promotees and the Union of India contended before the Tribunal
,._ that this Court in Narender Chadha's case based its conclusions on the
reasoning that the promotees were holding posts in the service for about H
957
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A 15 years and as sU:ch they could not be treated ~s ad hoc appointees; that
this Court did not make any distinction between the holder of a 'cadre'
,...
post or 'ex cadre' post; that the promo~s were to be treated regular
members of the Service from the date of promotion and as such whole of
the period of their service whether against cadre or ex cadre post had to
be counted towards seniority.
B
The Tribunal allowed the applications against which the present A
appeals and a writ petition were filed before this Court by special leave by
the promotees and the Union of India.

c On the question : whether the expression "posts" used by this Court ........
in Narender Chadha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1986] 1 SCR 211
~
was "cadre posts" or it included the Ex-cadre posts held by the promotees
in the Indian Statistical Service, or whether the benefit of continuous
officiation towards seniority was to be confined to the period spent against ~
the cadre post, this Court allowing the appeals filed by the promotees and
D dismissing the writ petition,

HELD : 1.01. This Court made the promotees regular members of
Grade IV Service from the day they are continuously holding posts in the
said Service. This Court did not make any ~stinction between a cadre post
or an ex-cadre post. This Court laid-down in clear terms that the
E promotees are entitled to count towards seniority the entire period of
service in Grade rv posts whether cadre or ex-cadre. (960 H, 961 B-CJ ~y--

1.02. This Court intended to fix the seniority of the promotees on the
basis of continuous length of sei:vice irrespective of the fact whether the
length of service was against a cadre post or an ex-cadre post. The
F
promotees included in the Select List of 1970, 1982 and 1984 against their
quota vacancies have been given seniority from an earlier date when they
started officiating in a Grade IV job. (968 CJ
-,-. :}-
1.03. This Court has nowhere useci the expression "cadre post" or
G "ex-cadre post" in the judgment. Needless to say that these words are the
alphabet of service jurisprudence. [968 DJ

1.04. The word 'post' has been used to indicate an appointment, a
job or a position to which a person is appointed. [968 EJ
~
H Narendet Cl1adha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, [1986J 1 SCR
U.0.1. v. PRATAP NARAIN [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 959

211 - Explained. A
~
CIVIL APPELLATE JURIS:pICrION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3264-
3265 of 1991.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.1989 of the <;:entral Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in Original Application No: 844 of 1986. B
,;,_
AND

Writ Petition (c) No .. 178 of 1990.

(Under Section 32 of The Constitution of India) c
Ms. Shyamla Papu, A. Subba Rao, C.V.S. Rao, Ms. A. Subhashini,
~ Ms. C.K. Sucharita, K.T. Anantharamy and P.P. Tripathi for the Appel-
Ian ts/Petitioners.

G.D~,Gupta, S.K. Gupta, J.P. Misra-iw-person, Devendra Verma-in- D
I
person, T.R. Mohanty-in-person (NP) and D.K. Joshi-in-person appeared
for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KULDIP SINGH, J. Promotees and direct recruits, in Government E
services, have an amazing capacity to rake-up old seniority-disputes set-
--y· tied-finally by the courts of law. This is the third round of litigation between
such members of the Indian Statistical Service. This Court in N_arender

- Chadha and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1986) 1 SCR 211 finally decided
the dispute regarding seniority between promotees and direct recruits
belonging to Indian Economics Service and the Indian Statistical Service.
This Court directed the Union Government:
F

"to treat all persons who are stated to have been promoted in this
~ ~
case to several posts in Grade IV in each of the two Services
contrary to the Rules till now as having been regularly appointed
to the said posts in Grade IV under rnle 8(1)(a)(ii) and assign G
them seniority in the cadre with effect from the dates from which
they are continuously officiating in the said posts. Even those
promotees who have been selected in 1970, 1982 and 1984 shall
be assigned seniority with effect from the date on which they
commenced to officiate continuously in the posts prior to their H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 2 S.C.R.

A selection. For purposes of seniority the dates of their selection
shall be ingnored. The direct recruits shall be given seniority
with effect from the date on which their names were recom-
mended by the Commission for appointment to such grade or
post as provided in clause (a) of Rule 9-C of the Rules. A
seniority list of all the promotees and the direct recruits shall
B be prepared on the abov~ basis treating the promotees as full
members of the service with effect from the dates from which
they are continuously officiating in the posts." [emphasis supplied]

The question for our consideration is whether the expression "posts"
C used by this Court in the above quoted directions means "cadre posts" or
it includes the ex-cadre posts held by the promotees in the Indian statistical ..._
Service. In other words whether the benefit of continuous officiation
towards seniority is to be confined to the period spent against the cadre ~
post or the total of such period whether against cadre or ex-cadre post.

D The directions of this Court-quoted above-are crystal-clear. It is
a pity that the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (Tribunal) ·
viewed the above directions in utter oblivion. This Court directed the
Union of India:

E (a) To treat all persons, stated to have been promoted contrary
to Rules, having been regularly appointed to Grade IV of the
Service; and

(b) Assign them seniority from the date of their continuously
officiation in Grade IV posts;
F
(c) Even those promotees who were selected for regular
promotion in 1970, 1982 and 1984 shall be assigned seniority
from the dates they commenced officiation continuously in
Grade IV prior to their selection. )- }-.
G A bare look at each of the above directions makes it clear that this
Court made the promotees regular members of Grade IV Service from the
day they are continuously holding posts. in the said Service. This Court did
not make any distinction between. a cadre post or an ex-cadre post. The
Court's judicious conscious was touched by the fact that the promotees --(
H were performing the duties of the jobs (posts) in Grade IV Service and
U.0.1. v. PR.ATAP NARAIN [KULDIP SINGH, J.) 961

were drawing salary of the posts: in the said Service for over fifteen years A
and still they were treated ad hoes and their appointments con~idei:ed
contrary to the Rules. This Court found it to be wholly arbitrary arid
directed that they be treated as regular members of the serviee from the
day of their continuous appointment. Even the promotees who were
regularly selected in the years 1970, 1982 and 1984 against their quota posts
were given benefit of their earlier officiation which was obviously not
B
against the posts meant for the promotees: We are, therefore, of the view
that this Court laid-down in clear terms that the promotees are entitled to
count towards -se~ority the entire period of service in Grade IV posts
whether cadre or ex-cadre. We may, however, dilate upon the judgment in
Chadha's case a bit more to clarify the point. c
A Bench of this Court consisting of 0. Chinnappa Reddy and E.S.
Venkataramiah, JJ. delivere0 the judgment in Narender Chadha's case on
February 11, 1986. The direct recruits filed a review petition which was
dismissed. The directions of this Court were implemented and a seniority D
list of Grade IV of the Indian Statistical Service (hereinafter called the
Service) was issued on May 8, 1986. Consequent promotions to Grade III
were made vide Notification dated May 22, 1986. The direct recruits in
Grade IV of the Service challenged the seniority list and the promotions
before the Tribunal on the ground that the seniority list was in violation of E
the directions of this Court in Narender Chadha's case. It was contended
on the interpretation of this Court's judgment that the promotees who
officiated against "cadre posts" in the Service, alone, are entitled to the
benefit of the said period towards seniority and those who officiated against

-- "Ex-cadre posts" are not entitled to such benefit.
F
The promo tees and the Union of India contended before the
Tribunal that this Court in Narender Chadha's case based its conclusions
on the reasoning that the promotees were holdif!g posts in the Service for
about 15 years and as such they could not be treated as ad hoc appointees.
This Court did not make any distinction between the holder of a cadre post G
or an ex cadre post. The intention of the Court is obvious from the plain
language which makes it clear that the promotees are to be treated regular
members of the Service from the date of promotion and as such whole of
the period of their service whether against cadre or ex-cadre post has to
be counted towards seniority. · H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 2 S.C.R..

A The Tribunal allowed the application on the following reasoning: -

"We have carefully considered the contentions advanced on
both·,sides and have also gone through the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Narender Chadha's case. We are required in
the present case to interpret the judgment of the Supreme
B Court in the light of the observations made and directions given
by their Lordships. In the entire judgment, we do not find the
use of any expression like ex-cadre posts' or 'posts outside the
cadre'. Appointment to Grade IV of the Service were con-
sidered in the context of conformity with the Service rules or
c otherwise. Neither in the averments made in the petition filed
before the Supreme Court. nor in the judgment given by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find any clue to reach the con-
clusion that benefit of continuous officiation in ex-cadre posts
not included in Grade IV of the Service, was either prayed for
or ordained to be given by the judgment.. ........We do not find
D
sufficient grounds to give a finding that Grade IV posts in the
judgment of Narender Chadha was used in a generic sense, as
contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. We are
conscious of the fact that deprivation of the benefits of seniority
in· respect of continuous officiation in ex cadre posts may not
E be justified on grounds of equity and discrimination. But in the
present case, we are bound by the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and this Tribunal is not competent to widen its
scope to extend the benefit of continuous officiation to incum-
bents who are not covered by the said judgment."
F
We are of the view that the Tribunal has fallen into a patent error.
A look· at the judgment would show that the approach of the Tribunal was
wholly perverse.

This Court examined the Scheme of the Indian Statistical Rules, 1961
G which lay down the constitution, method of appointment and other condi-
tions governing the Service. It was noticed that at the initial constitution of
the Rules on Novemeber 1, 1961 there were 116 posts in Grade IV and
total of 185 posts in the Service. All the Rules were noticed and after
reproducing Rule 8 which provides for appointments to the Service, it was
H observed as under: -
U.0.1. v. PRATAP NARAIN [KULDIP SINGH, J.) 963

~ "Although Rule 8 provided that not less that 75 per cent of the A
vacancies in Grade IV should be filled up by direct, recruit·
....,,. ments..........no direct recruitment was resorted to till about the
year 1968. In the meanwhile a large number of persons in the
feeder posts were appointed to the posts in Grade IV from
time to time from the year 1962 onwards although the orders
B
~ promoting them stated that they had been promoted only
temporarily. It is not disputed that all those promotees have
been holding those posts continuously till now without being
reverted to the feeder posts from which they had been
~ promoted. Some have retired from those posts on attaining the
t
age of superannuation." c
Thereafter the Bench noticed the fact that large number of posts
~
meant for the direct recruits we.re manned by the promotees for a period
of more than 15 years. The Bench observed as under: -
D
"The position in the Indian Statistical Service was more or less
the same. As against a total of 303 vacancies meant for direct
recruits between the years 1964 and 1984 only 275 direct
recruits were appointed. In this department also the posts
which remained unfilled had been held by the persons who
were departmental candidates. It is alleged in the counter-af- E
fidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India of which the
deponent is Shri P.G. Lele, Deputy Secretary in the Depart-

--
ment of Personnel and Administrative Reforms that many of
the departmental candidates had been allowed to hold posts
including in Grade IV of the aforesaid Services purely on ad F
hoc and ex gratia basis. The relevant part of the counter-af-
fidavit is to be found in paragraphs 21 to 24 thereof. It is
unfortunate that even though the promotees have been dis-
~-~
- charging their duties to the best of their ability and receiving
salary and allowances from. the Government for the services

- rendered by them, it is alleged in the course of the said G
counter-affidavit that what was being paid to them was by way
of grace. This statement adds insult to injury. If the Government
felt that they were not competent to discharge their duties and
they had not been appointed permanently to the posts held by
them, it was open to it to revert them to their posts from which H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 2 S.C.R.

A they had been promoted leaving it open to them to question
the orders of reversion in Court. The Government was in need
of their services and the petitioners have been holding these
posts for nearly 15 to 20 years. It is not fair to say at this distance
of time that the Government was only keeping them in their
posts as a matter of grace. Be that as it may, it is seen that the
B Departmental Promotion Committee met only thrice between
1965 an,_d 1984, i.e. 1970, 1972 and 1984 although under the rules
and instructions issued by the Central Government on the
advice of the Union Public Service Commission, the
Departmental Promotion Committee had to meet annually.
c
It is thus obvious that the Bench was fully conscious of the total
number of posts in the Service during the period from 1964 to 1984, the
total number of direct recruits occupying the posts, the fact that large
number of promotees .were occupying the posts meant for direct recruits
D and the Departmental Promotion Committee had not met for years
together to fill the posts meant for the promotees. The Bench was thus fully
aware of the provisions of the Rules and their actual application to the
cadre and ex-cadre posts during the period from 1961 till 1984. It is clear
from the minute factual details adverted to by the Bench, that this Court
gave benefit of total officiation to the promotees whether against a cadre
E post or a non cadre post. The problem faced by this Court in Narender
Chadha's case was noticed as under: -

"But we are faced in this case with the problem of resolving
conflicts which have arisen on account of a violent departure
F made by the Government from the Rules of recruitment by
allowing those who were appointed contrary to the Rules to
hold the posts continuously over a long period of time. The
question is whether after such a long period it is open to the
Government to place them in seniority at a place lower than
the place held by persons who were directly recruited after they
G had been promoted, and whether it would not violate Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution if the Government is allowed to
do so. Promotions of officers have been made in this case
deliberately and in vacancies which have lasted for a long
-
time ......... .It is significant that neither the Government has
H issued orders of reversion to their former posts nor has anybody
U.O.I. v. PRATAP NARAIN [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 965

so far questioned the right of the petitioners to continue in the A
posts which they are now holding. It would be unjust to hold at

- this distance of time that on the facts and in the circumstances
of this case the petitioners are not holding the posts in Grade W.
The above contention is therefore without substance. But we,
however, make it clear that it is not our view that whenevet a
B
person is appointed in a post without following the Rules
prescribed for appointment to that post, he should be treated
as a person regularly appointed to that post. Such a person may
be reverted from that post. But in a case of the kind before us
where persons have been allowed to function in higher posts for.
15 to 20 years with due deliberation it would be certainly unjust C
to hold that they have no sort of claim to such posts and could
be reverted unceremoniously or treated,as persons not belonging
to the Service at al~ particularly where the Government is en-
dowed with the power to relax the Rules to avoid unjust results.
In the instant case the Government has also not expressed its D
unwillingness to continue them in the said posts. The other
contesting respondents have also not urged that the petitioners
should be sent out of the said posts. The only question agitated
before us relates to the seniority as between the petitioners and
the direct recruits and such as question can arise only where
there is no dispute regarding the entry of officers concern:!d E
into the same Grade. In the instant case there is no impediment
even under the Rules to treat these petitioners and others w~o are
similarly situated as persons duly appointed to the posts in Grade

- W because· of the enabling provision contained in the rule 16
thereof. Rule 16 as it stood at the relevant time read as follows: F

*The Government may relax the provisions of these rules to
such extent as may be necessary to ensure satisfactory working
or remove inequitable results.*" (emphasis supplied)

It is obvious from the quote above that the Court was primarily G
concerned with the question of granting the promotees the benefit of their
long period of service in Grade IV posts for the purposes of seniority. The
promotees were appointed 15 years back to the cadre or ex-cadre posts in
Grade IV, had been doing the same work as regularly appointed Grade IV
·officers were doing, were drawing the same salary and were treated at par H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 2 S.C.R.

A with other regularly appointed officers. Is there any justification to deprive
them the benefit of 15 years of service on the ground that they were
wc:,rking against the ex-cadre posts. It was projected before this Court that
the appointments to Grade IV of all the promotees whether working
against cadre post or ex-cadre posts were contrary to the Rules. In that
situation where is the justification, afrer all the promotees are regularised
B
by this court, to hold that only those who are regularised while working
against cadre posts, are to be given the benefit of such regularisation
towards seniority. Doing that would be wholly arbitrary. The Tribunal itself
observed:-

c "We are conscious of the fact that deprivation of the benefits
of seniority in respect of continuous officiation in ex: cadre posts
may not be justified on grounds of equity and discrimination.
But in the present case, we are bound by the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal is not competent to
widen its scope to extend the benefit of continuous officiation
D to incumbents who are not covered by the said judgment."

But on the basis of patently illogical reasoning the Tribunal imputed
such a conclusfon which "may not be justified on grounds of equity and
discrimination" to this Court on an erroneous interpretation of the judg-
E ment in Narender Chadha's case. The least we can say is that the Tribunal
has acted in a wholly perverse and wayward manner.

This Court further noticed the enormity of the prejudice which was
likely to be caused to the promotees in case they were denied the benefit

F
of their ad hoc service in the following words: -:-

"The enormity of the prejudice that is likely to be caused to the
petitioners and others who were similarly stituated can be
--
demonstrated by setting out the effect of stiking to the quota
rule as found in rule 8(1)(a) even though there has been a
deliberate deviation from it. The result of applying the quota
G rule would be as follows: Petitioner No. 1 who was promoted
to Grade 17 on November 6, 1965 would be junior to a direct
recruit of 1974 batch. Petitioner No. 3 who was promoted to
Grade IV on March 22, 1966 would become junior to a direct
-
recruit of 1979 batch. Petitioner No. 6 who was promoted to
H Grade IV post in July 1, 1966 would become junior to direct
U.0.1. v. PRATAP NARAIN [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 967

recruits of 1982 batch. Petitioner No. 10 who was promoted to A
Grade IV on May 18, 1968 would become junior to direct
recruits of 1982 batch. Petitioners Nos. 16 to 18 and 21 to 25
would continue to be treated as ad hoc appointees and will be
junior to every body appointed till now into the service as they
cannot be fitted any wh~re even though they have put in 9 to B
15 years of service in Grade IV. These startling results ought
to shock anybody's conscience. The only just solution to this
problem is to treat the petitioners as persons duly appointed to
the Service with effect from the day on which they were promoted
·to the Grade W posts.
c
As observed in D.R. Nim, /PS v. Union of India, (1967] 2 SCR
325 when an officer has worked for a long period as in this case
for nearly fifteen to twenty years in a post and had never been
reverted it cannot be held that the officer's continuous officiation
was a mere temporary or local or stop gap a"angement even
though the order of appointment may state so. In such cir- D
cumstilnces the entire period of officiation has to be counted for
seniority. Any other view would be arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution because the temporary
service in the post in question is not for a short period intended
to meet some emergent or unforeseen circumstances. Clause (b) E
of rule 9C of the Rules which deals with the question of
seniority promotees becomes .irrelevant in the circumstances of
this case as regards the promotees who have been holding the
posts from a long time as stated above." [emphasis supplied)

This Court bas, in simple language and plain words, expressed its F
verdict in the 'quote' above.· It needs no clarification much less any inter-
pretation. It only needed a judicial-look which the Tribunal failed to do.

Regarding the promotees who were appointed in their quota this
Court observed as under: -
G
"We are aware that the view we are taking may upset the inter
se seniority between those promotees who were included in the
Select List of 1970, 1982 and 1984 and those who were included
later on or who have not been included at all till now. The
existence of this possibility should .not deter us from adopting H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 2 S.C.R.

A a uniform rule in the case of all promotees and direct recruits
to adjust the equities amongst them as regards their relative
seniority in the light of the violent departure made by the
Government both as regards direct recruitments and promo-
tions which it· had to make every year under the Rules. The
prejudice which the promotees included in the Select Lists
B might suffer is marginal and has to be ignored."

The above paragraph makes it further clear that this Court intended
to. fix the seniority of the promotees on the basis of continuous !ength of
service irrespective of the fact whether the length of service was against a
c cadre post or an ex-cadre post. The promotees included in the Select List
of 1970, 1982 and 1984 against .their quota vacancies have been given
seniority from an earlier date when they started officiating in a Grade IV
job.

This Court has nowhere used the expression "cadre post" or "ex-
D cadre post" in the judgment. Needless to say that these words are .the
alphabet of Service jurisprudence. In Narender Chadha's case it was legally
impossible to make any distinction on the basis of cadre or ex-cadre posts.
In any case if this Court intended to do so it would have done it in clear
terms. The word 'post' has been used by this Court to indicate an appoint-
ment, a job or a position to which a person is appointed.
E
We, therefore, allow the appeals, set as_ide the judgment of the 'i-
Tribunal and dismiss the applications filed by the respondents before the
Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

V.P.R. Appeals allowed
Petition dismissed.