IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH M.C.C.NO. (,\'_'\ 12011 ®ng1® Bencli APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 ?- .<t<" ^^•"' ^•""^8! ^•-^'.s^''^"'...-""' 1^^5-"^"\ ^au'-/--"'Q"^\^ '^^^ State of Madhya Pradesh, Through the Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) Now State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretaiy, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Chief Engineer, Department of Water Resources Bhopal (M.P.) Now the Chief Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Raipur (C.G.) VER S U S NON-APPLICANT / JVIahesh Giri, PETITIONER ^' S/o.- Shri S.R. Giri, Aged about - 37 years, Assistant Engineer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Department of Water Resources Balod, District - Durg (C.G.) PPLICATION FOR MQDIFICATION OF THE ORDER DATED '^)9/05/2011. PASSED IN W.P. (St N0; 748/2005. 1 r°i'^-i lww:u^"i'.^ \j"r ^?°i;~^j?"] i j-^i<..ji"~1^?'" ".' ^?;LAS?i':"'U;"\ S.-1 r^ ^"° k?". ^'i '"? J^s ^^"t.' ^ri^l r;;^~T ' !s.^.3h.^?sh '?^:°"i *-\'-';J1i;L/.^'; ;;. . i^'Ss^; ;G?»5i1 •'NSi;; "-'^fst'frsj^f VERSUS i^SSDQHCiSHtS ^ -.sTST'S OT iV|@G)1V3 r r3CJS3;a (Now Chhattisgarh) & Another 'ressnt: Shri iviano' ParaiDe, Acvocats for the aooiicsnt. ^r'H ,^'up ^so, ^ovsmniSHT AOVOCSIS Tor ins SS'TSIS. M r'\ f. M.Tt ^'^'^r^F 9^11 j'/^.^-/.^. ;S"U. O ;-5 >-^F i^U i s ~?3p;iCS.HI3 . ^sISIS 07 avlSQHVS ^TSQSSH ^esooRdsnts ;Now Chhattisgarh; & Anoiher V t— --\s^ ^ i^ ?,.3..-,^^^^ ^.'-.^ iuiJ'i~teP^iivc![?Mi. . J'y'Ci"iic;i3H \-?;;3 "etrtioner Tessn'!: Shri Arun Sao, Govsrnment Advocafe for the State. <?^-^:; ^j1—----.:D.~.---<:"',^- •^..-.^.f/'-i~-/-!+^..-C^r'4i-.n i~/-,^_..r'(^ni!^^ti",4 Oani iVjdiiL?3 ;'&:^i y:;pic;i .^UVU^oiy sC?! UiS IfUH~yppjiL;yHI. .^DQI i-Ta'A'Ti>r'i?-.:! iFF^O ^^'"^"'-^l-^A'Tir"^^' ^S -TMS <^%S?r^^S3 r^^'TST^ !^Q n^ '^•fl'? 'l .-^r'?°"^s>h/j~ i i^i'-i r^/r^ ti.''r'K/,^'in''i..^~'i 4 s'-s/j^ "^ s H!S; v^r^^cr^ i^'rt i iCL^ u^.LsiS.-^u i i SB: Hon'fc'e Shn Sstish K. Aanthotri, J. •»-'• r\ L/ i-. a~\ (Passsd on tnls 12"" dsy of Sepsember, 2011) a.^o'tn 7:)c s.Dovs spDisGstions dssls v\fi*ti IHQ c^ncsl niists'cs in in's ofusr ciated 09.05.2u11, oassed in W.P.CS' No.748/2005. Thus, thev are DSiHg QSC3QSu TOQSIHSr. ws DOimsci oui DV ^n^ ^yms.o cou?is©3sDDSisHnct TGf uss OSHsSS THQT IH : 5F3 •L.J SnQ 5 O? IHS OrQSf QSi.SO U^'.U?3,;^U i 1 , Q GiSHGS.I; iTslSTCTKS ii@S GF^D't iH. < iiUS- THSSS S.ppiiCciuOr:3 TOa COftSCliOi;. On pepusaS, it is found fhat "he Pubiic Ssrvsce Commission (for short "the PSCn" mentioned in third Sine of Para 3 of.the order, was wrongly lyissa- si snoUiQ DS rss'ci 'ss u©DQn?TisnTSiS['©ciiOHuQmniiTtss (TGF snon "he DSCV in Heu of Pub'ic Sen/ice Commjssion Cror short the PSC^. i 1^o-ft;;<z-s :~ f^~h i^^s n£ ?3^r^ ^ -f ih.-s^ fr"o.r ^^fac;-^ nf "P^r^" :A ch"-;;!^ ^'iv^Wiw, ':is :;";i '1''^ u' T"cs'y :3 Oi iHSi uiuS?3, Kiyiy<riU Ui ?d'0^ ; H te^UUit5 «r*?^r'st' »-)C; < G:C?'U iKO •-^•^-^''^f . ^ ^-i-1-' Thus. l"e order diatsd 09.05.201 1 is amended accordingly. A fresh order DS iSsuao ^TiSa incQrporsiiHy nscssssry snTfSnomspTS. ss SHHQXSQ j'isrewnn. \n viewofforeyuing, bofh ths sppiications stand dispossd of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ? e!S.\ /.»^^ "^ ^ -^. g?i 'ys-ss"* V-.'s^ "^'^e-ff^''' UI-^LJ r^?-^is SQ'T /"•iS''' .-'l'U U A "TT'1 C?"^ A QU • Oil ^ C'sr^t'?i3 i-liU;M L.UUK ! Ur- uMMA i 1 i&uAKM : BiLAS'-Ui-; ^J'..rtsi~~ ?3i!rTi~n/~^M ,/??\ :\![.- i! T.-IC r^": 'n'^^e VMHl i "fc i ! 1 iUil 'fiii "jU. /40 Ui' AUUS' S-T'i^,^ i ?~Q ipi T<L,'^^,J r%c" ^.""T'C* Kt.Sr'UiMUtiM lii IVISuSSH ^li versus T^ rhe Stste of Mad'nya Pradesh (Now Chhattisaa isgarh) & Anothei Single Bench : Hon'bSe S'nri Sstish K. Agnihi rtn, J. Present:- Shri Manoj Paranjape, Adyocate forthe petjaoner. Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the State. AMENDED ORDER £.. (Passed on this 12th day of September, 2011) By thls petition, the petitioner seeks seniority on the post of Ass'stant Engineer from the date he was appolnted on ad hoc basis and confinued on the same basis ti!i 14.05.1987, when he was reauianzea on sen/ice. The facts, In brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petltioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civii) Ciass-1! t'Gazetted) on ad hoc basis vide order dated 11.01.1980 (Annexure A-1). Thereafter, he joined the office on 24.01.1980 .(Annexure A-2). The petitioner continued in the same capacity ti'i 14.05.1987 I'Annexure A-3), when hevi?as reguiarized. According to Shri Paranjape, iearned cbunsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed, In accordance with law, arter open competition through Department Seiection C-ommittee ;f ThfflrasifT^r "l (for short "the DSC") agaiflst tne sanctioned post. i nereaner, ine petitiones' was made permanent on the said post and, as such,the petitioner is entitied to continuity w.e.f. the date, he joined the sen/ice on the post ofAssistant Enaineer, till hewas made reguiar. / ,-:lr^ ~"\ y *• .,„>,»-, '.i 3 v.^g9a%: ^ vs ^ -V-, 5. s. On the other hand, Shri Gupta, leamed counsei appearing for the State respondents submits that fhe grievance of the petltioner is highiy belatsd, as the petitioner has filed the instant petition in 1993.. Ths cause of action arose in the year 1987, when the petltioner was made permanent, after serving on ad hoc basis ti!! that date. Thus, the peiitioner is entitled to senlority only w.e.f. the date of his regular appointment, not prior to that. Having heard iearned counsei appearing for ths parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that by order dated 1 1.01.1980 (Annexure A-1), the appointment of the petitioner was made on the basis ofthe select list prepared by the DSC, it appears, agalnst the sanctioned post. There is no denial ofthe fact by the State counsei. Thereafter, by order dated 14.05.1987 (Annexure A-3), the petitioner was appointed on offlciatlng basis. The pctltioner made a representaiion on 15.04.1990 (Annexure A-5) for grant of continuity of service w.e.f. the date of hls appointment on ad hoc basis. Thereagainst, since no decision was taken by the author'tses; the petitioner filed the instant petition. The law js weli settted in this Issue that if the appointment of an empioyee is on ad hoc or ofTidating basis, in accorciance with law, aaainst the sanctioned Dost,- the oeriod spent as ad hoc or officiating after reguiarization, shaii be counted for the purpose of determinatiort of senioritv. ." .{- •s" ..I '^ i:^SsSr: Ashok A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Dlrect Recruit ClaSS-SI Englneenng Offlcers' Associatwn v. State of Mi & Others summarized the ratio, inter alia, ss under: "47. To sum U.D, we hold that: r; (A) Once an incumbent is appolnted to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted frorn the date of hls appointmsnt and not according to the date of his confirmation. The coroliary of the above rule Is that where the initiai appointment is only ad hoc and not according to ruies and made as a stop-gap arranyement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considerina the seniority. (B) if the initiai appointment is not made by foiiowh-ig the procedure laid down by the rules but the appoint.ee continues in the post uninterruptediy tili the regularization of his sep/ice In accordsnce with the rutes, the period of offlciatina service wiil be counted." The aforesaid decision subsequentiy In State of West E thereafter, in C,h. Marayana Rao was referred v/ith approval 'iengs! v. Aghore hiath Deyi and '. Unlon cf indis & Othsrs . 8. Applylna the wei; settied proposltlon of law, as aforestated to the facts . of the case, wherein indisputabiv the petitioner was appointe.d on ad hoc basis accordlng to rule through proper ssiectlon and continued tili he was confirmed or made reguiar. The seniority of the petitioner has to be counted from the date of his appointment on ad hoc basis and not -from the date of confirmation/reauiarizatlon. 9. !n view of foregolng, the writ petition is aiiowed to the abovs ewent. No order asto costs. ,— — - — Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ' (1990) 2 SCC 715 : (1993)33cc 371 ~ (2010) 10SCC247 r