Supreme Court Clarifies Seniority for Regularized Ad Hoc Employees: Malook Singh vs. State of Punjab (28 September 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 28 September 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 610

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Vikram Nath, J., and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can prior ad hoc service be counted for seniority after regularization? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning clerks in the Punjab Civil Secretariat. The court clarified that ad hoc service, if not according to rules, does not count towards seniority upon regularization. This judgment impacts how seniority is determined for government employees who were initially appointed on an ad hoc basis and later regularized. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Case Background

The appellants were initially appointed as clerks in the Punjab Civil Secretariat on an ad hoc basis in 1975-1976. Their services were regularized on 3 May 1977, effective from 1 April 1977, as per a government policy. This policy aimed to regularize ad hoc employees who were initially appointed due to administrative needs, after notifying the vacancies to the employment exchange or through advertisements. The policy stipulated that seniority for these regularized employees would be determined from 1 April 1977, with inter-se seniority among ad hoc employees based on their length of ad hoc service.

A group of seventy-three clerks, including the appellants, filed a writ petition challenging their seniority position as of 31 December 1978. They claimed that their ad hoc service should be considered for seniority over regularly recruited clerks appointed after them. The High Court initially ruled in their favor, stating that those regularized from 1 April 1977, would be senior to those recruited later and that their ad hoc service should be counted for seniority. However, this was later contested in subsequent proceedings.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial writ petition filed by the clerks was decided in their favor by a Single Judge of the High Court, who ruled that their ad hoc service should be counted for seniority. This decision was upheld in part by a Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal, which however, left open the question of whether ad hoc service should be counted for seniority. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the Division Bench’s judgment.

Subsequently, a fresh batch of writ petitions was filed challenging the seniority list which was prepared by including ad hoc service. The Single Judge in these proceedings held that the previous judgment in favor of the clerks had been overruled by a Division Bench in another case and that ad hoc service should not count for seniority. This decision was upheld by a Division Bench, leading to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class III) Rules 1976, specifically Rule 9, which states that seniority is determined by the length of continuous service in a cadre. The policy of regularization dated 3 May 1977, also plays a crucial role, as it stipulates that regularization is effective from 1 April 1977, and that seniority would be determined from this date for those appointed regularly through the prescribed selection process. However, inter-se seniority among the ad hoc employees was to be based on the length of their ad hoc service.

The Supreme Court also considered the implications of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The court referred to the principle that equals should be treated equally and unequals should not be treated as equals.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that they had received promotions and retired, and their pensionary benefits should be protected.
• They contended that their initial ad hoc appointments were not “back door entries” as they were selected after notifying the employment exchange and through regular selection committees, though not through the Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board (PSSSB).
• The appellants maintained that the High Court correctly held that the judgment in Malook Singh’s case would bind the parties involved, even if it was disapproved in subsequent judgments.
• They requested that their pensionary benefits be protected under Article 142 of the Constitution, preventing any recovery of payments already made.

State of Punjab’s Arguments:

• The State argued that while the Single Judge in Malook Singh’s case had counted ad hoc service for seniority, the Division Bench had specifically kept this issue open.
• The regularization order of 3 May 1977, clearly stated that seniority would be reckoned from 1 April 1977, and that inter-se seniority among ad hoc employees would be based on the length of ad hoc service.
• The State pointed out that the respondents in the initial writ petition were directly recruited candidates appointed after 1 April 1977, and those appointed prior to 1 April 1977, were not parties to the proceedings.
• The State contended that ad hoc service of those initially appointed without due process should not count for seniority, in line with settled law.
• The State acknowledged the practical difficulty of revising the seniority list at this stage, considering that many employees have retired.

Private Respondents’ Arguments:

• The private respondents argued that the policy of 3 May 1977, clarified that seniority would be determined from 1 April 1977.
• They highlighted that some clerks joined on the recommendations of the PSSSB between December 1976 and April 1977, before the regularization notification.
• They contended that the appellants should not rank higher based on the length of ad hoc service.

Other Appellants’ Arguments:

• Other appellants sought seniority based on the judgment in Malook Singh’s case.
• They argued that their ad hoc service should count towards seniority.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the ad hoc service of the appellants should be counted for seniority upon regularization.
2. Whether the judgment in Malook Singh’s case would bind the parties involved, even if it was disapproved in subsequent judgments.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class III) Rules 1976: This rule stipulates that seniority is determined by the length of continuous service in a cadre.
• Policy of regularization dated 3 May 1977: This policy laid down the conditions for regularization of ad hoc employees and the principles for determining seniority.
• Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India: These articles guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra [(1990) 2 SCC 715]* to establish that ad hoc service cannot be counted for seniority if the initial appointment was a stop-gap arrangement and not according to rules.
• The Supreme Court followed Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India [1992 Supp (1) SCC 272]* which reiterated the principle laid down in Direct Recruits (supra).
• The Supreme Court cited Rashi Mani Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2021 SCC OnLine SCC 509]* to reinforce that services rendered by ad hoc employees prior to their regularization cannot be counted for seniority.
• The Supreme Court used State of Rajasthan v. Nemi Chand Mahela [(2019) 14 SCC 179]* to distinguish between the doctrine of res judicata and the law of precedent.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that ad hoc appointments made as stop-gap arrangements and not according to rules should not be counted for seniority. The Court emphasized that the initial appointments of the appellants were not made through the regular selection process and were intended to be temporary. The Court also considered the practical difficulties of revising the seniority list after so many years, especially since most employees had already retired. The need to protect the pensionary benefits of the retired employees also weighed heavily on the Court’s mind. The Court also considered the principle of res judicata to determine who would be bound by the previous judgments.

Logical Reasoning:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision that ad hoc service cannot be counted for seniority upon regularization if the initial appointment was not made according to rules. The Court clarified that the judgment in Malook Singh’s case would only bind the parties to those proceedings. The Court also directed that the pensionary benefits of all the appellants and respondents should be protected, and no recoveries should be made.

The Court reasoned that the initial ad hoc appointments were stop-gap arrangements and not made according to the rules. Therefore, the ad hoc service could not be equated with regular service for the purpose of seniority. The Court also noted that the practical difficulties of revising the seniority list after so many years, and the need to protect the pensionary benefits of retired employees.

The Court quoted from Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, stating:

“Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to a rule, his seniority has to counted from the date of appointment and not according to date of his confirmation. The corollary to the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop -gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account considering the seniority.”

The Court also quoted from State of Rajasthan v. Nemi Chand Mahela, stating:

“Res judicata operates in personam i.e. the matter in issue between the same parties in the former litigation, while law of precedent operates in rem i.e. the law once settled is binding on all under the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court.”

The Court further observed:

“Revising the seniority at this length of time would cast an insuperable burden on the State…it would be in the interests of justice if the pensionary benefits which they are now receiving are duly protected both against recoveries and in respect of their disbursement for the future.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Ad hoc service does not count for seniority upon regularization if the initial appointment was not made according to rules.
• The doctrine of res judicata applies to the parties involved in a specific case.
• Courts may protect the pensionary benefits of retired employees to avoid hardship and uncertainty.
• The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that equals should be treated equally and unequals should not be treated as equals.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The pensionary benefits disbursed to the appellants should not be disturbed.
• The pensionary payments disbursed to the respondents should be paid in accordance with law.
• No recoveries should be made from the appellants.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that ad hoc service cannot be counted for seniority upon regularization if the initial appointment was not made according to rules. This judgment reaffirms the established legal position on seniority and clarifies the distinction between ad hoc and regular appointments. There is no change in the previous positions of law but a reaffirmation of the same.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Malook Singh vs. State of Punjab clarifies that ad hoc service does not count towards seniority upon regularization if the initial appointment was not made according to rules. While the Court upheld the legal principle that ad hoc service does not count for seniority, it also protected the pensionary benefits of the retired employees, acknowledging the practical difficulties of revising seniority lists after many years. This decision reinforces the importance of following proper procedures in government appointments and highlights the court’s role in balancing legal principles with practical considerations.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

• Child Category: Seniority
• Child Category: Regularization
• Child Category: Ad Hoc Appointments

Parent Category: Constitution of India

• Child Category: Article 14, Constitution of India
• Child Category: Article 16, Constitution of India

Parent Category: Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class III) Rules 1976

• Child Category: Rule 9, Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class III) Rules 1976

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Malook Singh vs. State of Punjab case?

A: The main issue is whether ad hoc service can be counted for seniority after an employee is regularized in government service.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about ad hoc service and seniority?

A: The Supreme Court decided that ad hoc service does not count for seniority if the initial appointment was a stop-gap arrangement and not made according to the rules.

Q: What does ‘regularization’ mean in this context?

A: Regularization refers to the process where an employee who was initially appointed on a temporary or ad hoc basis is given a permanent position in the government service.

Q: What is the significance of the “Direct Recruit” case mentioned in the judgment?

A: The “Direct Recruit” case established the principle that ad hoc service cannot be counted for seniority if the initial appointment was not according to rules. The Supreme Court relied on this precedent in its judgment.

Q: What is the doctrine of res judicata?

A: The doctrine of res judicata means that a matter that has been decided by a court cannot be relitigated between the same parties. In this case, it means that the judgment in Malook Singh’s case would bind the parties involved in that specific litigation.

Q: What did the Supreme Court say about the pensionary benefits of the employees in this case?

A: The Supreme Court directed that the pensionary benefits of both the appellants and the respondents should be protected, and no recoveries should be made from them.

Q: What is the practical implication of this judgment for government employees?

A: This judgment clarifies that ad hoc service will not be considered for seniority unless the initial appointment was made according to the prescribed rules and procedures. This may affect the seniority of employees who were initially appointed on an ad hoc basis and later regularized.