LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee appointed on compassionate grounds is entitled to claim seniority from a retrospective date when they were not in service.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Arbind Jee
[Judgment Date]: 28 September 2021
Date of the Judgment: 28 September 2021
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Can an employee claim seniority from a date when they were not even employed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a service law appeal concerning compassionate appointments. The Court clarified that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the employee was not in service, thereby setting aside the Patna High Court’s order. This judgment emphasizes the importance of actual service in determining seniority and protects the rights of those who joined service earlier.
Case Background
The respondent’s father was a Home Guard who died while in service. Following his death, the respondent applied for a compassionate appointment. The concerned committee recommended the respondent, and on 20 November 1985, an order was issued by the Commandant of Bihar Home Guard, shortlisting the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds. This appointment was conditional upon the respondent meeting physical fitness standards and other qualifications.
The respondent appeared at the Home Guard Headquarters but was denied appointment due to not meeting the required physical standards. Aggrieved, the respondent approached the Patna High Court and secured a direction for appointment to a Class IV post. However, since the respondent was shortlisted for the post of Adhinayak Lipik, he challenged the High Court order, which eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 20 November 1985 | Respondent shortlisted for compassionate appointment as Home Guard. |
| Respondent denied appointment for not meeting physical standards. | |
| Respondent sought relief from Patna High Court for appointment in Class IV post. | |
| Respondent challenged the High Court order in Supreme Court, as he was shortlisted for Adhinayak Lipik. | |
| 2 January 1996 | Supreme Court directed the appointment of the respondent to the post of ‘Adhinayak Lipik’. |
| 10 February 1996 | Respondent appointed as Adhinayak Lipik. |
| 27 February 1996 | Respondent joined service. |
| 10 September 2002 | Respondent applied for seniority from 5 December 1985. |
| 20 November 2002 | Respondent’s claim for seniority from 5 December 1985 was rejected. |
| Respondent challenged the rejection order in Patna High Court. | |
| 29 September 2008 | Patna High Court directed that respondent’s seniority should be counted from 20 November 1985. |
| 28 September 2021 | Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court’s order. |
Course of Proceedings
The respondent, after being denied appointment due to physical standards, initially obtained relief from the Patna High Court for a Class IV post. However, the respondent challenged this order as he was shortlisted for the post of Adhinayak Lipik. The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 220 of 1996, directed the respondent’s appointment to the post of ‘Adhinayak Lipik’ within one month. Subsequently, the respondent was appointed on 27 February 1996. Six years later, the respondent claimed seniority from 5 December 1985, which was rejected by the authorities. The Patna High Court then directed that the respondent’s seniority be counted from 20 November 1985, leading to the present appeal by the State of Bihar.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of service law principles concerning seniority and retrospective benefits. The court considered the principle that seniority is generally counted from the date of joining service and that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from a date when an employee was not in service. The court also touched upon the principles of fairness and equity in service matters.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The State argued that the respondent’s appointment was made on 10 February 1996, following the Supreme Court’s direction, and he joined service on 27 February 1996.
- The appellant contended that the respondent’s claim for seniority from 20 November 1985 is not valid as he was not in service on that date.
- The State relied on the principle that retrospective seniority cannot be granted from a date when the employee was not borne on the cadre, citing Shitla Prasad Shukla vs. State of UP and Ors. [1986 (Supp.) SCC 185].
- The appellant argued that granting retrospective seniority would unfairly impact other employees who had joined service between 1985 and 1996.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent argued that his appointment should relate back to the initial order of 20 November 1985, when he was first shortlisted for compassionate appointment.
- The respondent relied on C. Jayachandran vs. State of Kerala [(2020) 5 SCC 230], arguing that he diligently pursued his grievances and should be granted notional seniority.
- The respondent contended that the delay in his appointment was not due to his fault and that he should not be penalized for the time taken by the authorities and courts.
Submissions of the Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Seniority Claim | Respondent’s seniority should be counted from 20 November 1985, the date of initial shortlisting. | Respondent |
| Seniority Claim | Respondent’s seniority should be counted from the date of actual appointment, 10 February 1996. | Appellant |
| Retrospective Benefit | Respondent is entitled to retrospective seniority as he was initially shortlisted in 1985. | Respondent |
| Retrospective Benefit | Retrospective seniority cannot be granted as the respondent was not in service before 1996. | Appellant |
| Precedence over other Employees | Granting seniority from 1985 would unfairly impact other employees who joined service between 1985 and 1996. | Appellant |
| Diligence of Litigant | Respondent diligently pursued his grievances and should be granted notional seniority. | Respondent |
| Diligence of Litigant | The respondent did not raise the claim for retrospective seniority in the earlier round of litigation before the Supreme Court. | Appellant |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the respondent is entitled to claim seniority in service from a retrospective date, i.e., 20 November 1985, as was ordered by the High Court, or whether he is entitled to seniority from the date he entered service.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the respondent is entitled to claim seniority from 20 November 1985 | No | The respondent was not in service on that date. Retrospective seniority cannot be granted from a date when an employee was not borne on the cadre. |
| Whether the respondent is entitled to seniority from the date he entered service | Yes | Seniority is counted from the date of actual joining of service, in this case, 27 February 1996. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Used |
|---|---|---|
| Shitla Prasad Shukla vs. State of UP and Ors. [1986 (Supp.) SCC 185] | Supreme Court of India | The Court applied the principle that latecomers cannot steal a march over early arrivals. It emphasized that seniority matters should be determined by the competent authority acting bona fide and fairly. |
| Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v State of Maharashtra [(1990) 2 SCC 715] | Supreme Court of India | The Court reiterated the principle that seniority is counted from the date of initial entry into the grade. |
| State of Bihar v Akhouri Sachindra Nath [1991 Supp. (1) SCC 334] | Supreme Court of India | The Court reaffirmed the principle that retrospective seniority cannot be granted from a date when the employee was not in service. |
| State of Uttaranchal v Dinesh Kumar Sharma [(2007) 1 SCC 683] | Supreme Court of India | The Court reiterated the principle that seniority is counted from the date of initial entry into the grade. |
| Ganga Vishan Gujrati And Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [(2019) 16 SCC 28] | Supreme Court of India | The Court reiterated that retrospective seniority cannot be granted from a date when the employee was not borne on a cadre. |
| C. Jayachandran vs. State of Kerala [(2020) 5 SCC 230] | Supreme Court of India | The Court distinguished this case, noting that it involved a diligent litigant claiming notional seniority within a reasonable time after appointment. The present case was not a case of competitive recruitment. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Seniority should be counted from 20 November 1985 | Respondent | Rejected. The Court held that seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the employee was not in service. |
| Seniority should be counted from the date of actual appointment, 10 February 1996. | Appellant | Accepted. The Court held that seniority is counted from the date of joining service. |
| Entitled to retrospective seniority as he was initially shortlisted in 1985. | Respondent | Rejected. The court held that retrospective seniority cannot be granted as the respondent was not in service before 1996. |
| Retrospective seniority cannot be granted as the respondent was not in service before 1996. | Appellant | Accepted. The Court upheld the appellant’s argument that retrospective seniority cannot be granted. |
| Granting seniority from 1985 would unfairly impact other employees who joined service between 1985 and 1996. | Appellant | Accepted. The Court agreed that granting retrospective seniority would unfairly impact other employees who had joined service earlier. |
| Respondent diligently pursued his grievances and should be granted notional seniority. | Respondent | Rejected. The Court distinguished the case of C. Jayachandran, noting that the present case was not a case of competitive recruitment and the respondent did not raise the claim for retrospective seniority in the earlier round of litigation before the Supreme Court. |
| The respondent did not raise the claim for retrospective seniority in the earlier round of litigation before the Supreme Court. | Appellant | Accepted. The Court noted that the respondent did not raise the claim for retrospective seniority in the earlier round of litigation before the Supreme Court. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Shitla Prasad Shukla vs. State of UP and Ors. [1986 (Supp.) SCC 185]*: The Court followed this authority, emphasizing that latecomers cannot gain seniority over those who joined earlier.
- Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v State of Maharashtra [(1990) 2 SCC 715]*: The Court reiterated the principle that seniority is counted from the date of initial entry into the grade.
- State of Bihar v Akhouri Sachindra Nath [1991 Supp. (1) SCC 334]*: The Court reaffirmed the principle that retrospective seniority cannot be granted from a date when the employee was not in service.
- State of Uttaranchal v Dinesh Kumar Sharma [(2007) 1 SCC 683]*: The Court reiterated the principle that seniority is counted from the date of initial entry into the grade.
- Ganga Vishan Gujrati And Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [(2019) 16 SCC 28]*: The Court reiterated that retrospective seniority cannot be granted from a date when the employee was not borne on a cadre.
- C. Jayachandran vs. State of Kerala [(2020) 5 SCC 230]*: The Court distinguished this case, noting that it involved a diligent litigant claiming notional seniority within a reasonable time after appointment, which was not the case here.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the established principles of service law, which emphasize that seniority is generally counted from the date of joining service. The Court noted that the respondent was not in service on 20 November 1985, and therefore, could not claim seniority from that date. The Court was also concerned about the impact on other employees who had joined service earlier and would be unfairly disadvantaged if the respondent were granted retrospective seniority. The Court also considered that the respondent did not raise this claim in the earlier round of litigation before the Supreme Court or soon after his appointment.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Adherence to Established Service Law Principles | 40% |
| Impact on Other Employees | 30% |
| Respondent’s Delay in Claiming Seniority | 20% |
| Distinction from C. Jayachandran Case | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case. The ratio indicates that the legal considerations significantly outweighed the factual aspects in the Court’s decision-making process.
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Can the respondent claim seniority from 20 November 1985?
Was the respondent in service on 20 November 1985?
No
General Service Law Principle: Seniority is counted from the date of joining service.
Precedents: Shitla Prasad Shukla, Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association, Ganga Vishan Gujrati
Conclusion: Retrospective seniority cannot be granted.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the respondent is not entitled to claim seniority from 20 November 1985, as he was not in service on that date. The Court emphasized that seniority is counted from the date of joining service, which in this case was 27 February 1996. The Court set aside the Patna High Court’s order granting retrospective seniority to the respondent.
The Court observed, “The jurisprudence in the field of service law would advise us that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from a date when an employee is not even borne in service.”
The Court further stated, “Seniority benefit can accrue only after a person joins service and to say that benefits can be earned retrospectively would be erroneous.”
The Court also noted, “Moreover, the action of the authorities in determination of the respondent’s seniority from the date of entering service is found to be consistent with the applicable laws.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from a date when an employee was not in service.
- Seniority is generally counted from the date of joining service.
- Granting retrospective seniority can unfairly impact other employees who joined service earlier.
- Employees should raise claims for seniority benefits within a reasonable time after joining service.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court’s order, which had granted retrospective seniority to the respondent. The Court did not give any further directions.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that retrospective seniority cannot be granted to an employee from a date when they were not in service. This judgment reinforces the established principles of service law and clarifies that seniority is counted from the date of actual joining of service. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but this case reiterates the importance of actual service in determining seniority.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Bihar vs. Arbind Jee clarifies that an employee cannot claim seniority from a retrospective date when they were not in service. The Court set aside the Patna High Court’s order, emphasizing that seniority is counted from the date of joining service and that granting retrospective seniority would unfairly impact other employees. This decision reinforces established principles of service law and provides clarity on the issue of seniority in compassionate appointments.
Source: State of Bihar vs. Arbind Jee