The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed an attraction by the Bihar authorities difficult the retrospective seniority of an individual, saying that retrospective seniority can’t be claimed from the date when an worker isn’t in service.
The apex court docket mentioned it is usually vital to notice that except directed by the court docket or expressly supplied by the relevant guidelines, retrospective seniority shouldn’t be allowed to take action earlier than getting into service. Others who do will probably be affected.
A bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy mentioned, “Juristics in the field of service law would advise us that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from the date when an employee ceases to be in service.”
The high court docket was listening to an attraction filed by the Bihar authorities difficult the Patna High Court’s order permitting a petition by a resident of the state in search of retrospective seniority.
The high court docket mentioned that his father was working as a house guard and after his dying the son had utilized for compassionate appointment.
The involved committee beneficial his identify together with others in 1985 as one of many individuals chosen for appointment on compassionate grounds.
After being discovered unfit on bodily requirements, he moved the High Court, which allowed his appointment to the Class IV publish.
As he was shortlisted for the publish of Adhyayak Clerk, he challenged the High Court order which was allowed by the Apex Court and was appointed on February 27, 1996 by an order issued by the Commandant of Bihar Home Guard. .
An utility was made by him in 2002, six years after becoming a member of the service, claiming seniority with impact from December 5, 1985, however the authorities rejected the declare on the bottom that he was appointed in 1996 and that he Wasn’t in service till 1985.
The rejection order was then challenged and the Patna High Court directed the authority to contemplate his seniority with impact from December 5, 1985.
The high court docket noticed that the compassionate appointment of the respondent isn’t being questioned right here, however the necessary level is that he’s claiming the seniority profit for 10 years with out working a single day throughout that interval.
“In different phrases, choice is being claimed over different common staff who entered service between 1985 and 1996. In this example, the seniority stability can’t be tipped towards those that entered service a lot sooner than the respondent. The advantage of seniority might be availed solely after an individual has joined the service and it will be improper to say that the profit might be earned retrospectively,” the bench mentioned.
The bench mentioned the current isn’t a matter of recruitment by choice and compassionate appointment on the orders of this court docket.
The court docket’s route to the state was to nominate inside a month with out specifying that the appointment ought to have retrospective impact, it mentioned.
The bench noticed that the respondent by no means made any declare to narrate his appointment to an earlier date.
“Six years later, solely on September 10, 2002, he made a illustration, and it was dismissed with the comment that in 1985, the defendant was but to enter service.
“Proceeding with these facts, it can be clearly seen that the Respondent has slept on his rights, and has never before made his present claim to the Supreme Court (in the first round) or to the State immediately after his appointment.” not addressed explicitly.” The bench mentioned.
.
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
