CH. NARAYANA RAO versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

CH. NARAYANA RAO versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The appellant's initial appointment was purely ad-hoc and not in accordance with the recruitment rules, which prescribed passing a proficiency test for regularisation. His seniority must, therefore, be reckoned only from the date of passing the test and regularisation, and not from the date of his initial ad-hoc appointment.

Parties
Appellant: CH. Narayana Rao; Respondents: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Division Bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Affirming Central Administrative Tribunal Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Seniority, Ad Hoc Service, Regularisation of Service, Pensionary Benefits
Service Law Seniority Ad Hoc Service Regularisation of Service Pensionary Benefits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CH. Narayana Rao

Appellant

Union of India & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Division Bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Affirming Central Administrative Tribunal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ad-hoc service rendered by the appellant from 1981 to 1992 should be counted for seniority upon regularisation as Stenographer (OG)
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to seniority from the date of initial appointment or only from the date of qualifying the required proficiency test as per the rules

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's initial appointment was purely ad-hoc and not in accordance with the recruitment rules, which prescribed passing a proficiency test for regularisation. His seniority must, therefore, be reckoned only from the date of passing the test and regularisation, and not from the date of his initial ad-hoc appointment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant not entitled to seniority from date of initial ad-hoc appointment; seniority to be counted only from date of passing the Stenography test as per rules; no order as to costs.