KARAM CHAND versus HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.

KARAM CHAND versus HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.

Promotion of the appellant to a reserved vacancy as Deputy Superintendent was regular and not temporary; therefore, his seniority must be reckoned from the date of his appointment to the promoted post under Rule 9(i) of the 1952 Rules, not inter se from the previous grade. Accordingly, appellant was entitled to be treated as senior and promoted to Superintendent on the dates respondents 2 and 3 were promoted.

Parties
Appellant: Karam Chand; Respondents: Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 October 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against Dismissal of Writ Petition and Letters Patent Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Seniority, Reservation, Promotion, Scheduled Castes
Service Law Seniority Reservation Promotion Scheduled Castes

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karam Chand

Appellant

Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against Dismissal of Writ Petition and Letters Patent Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an employee promoted to a post reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is entitled to have his seniority determined from the date of his appointment to the post or as per inter se seniority in the lower grade.

Ratio Decidendi

Promotion of the appellant to a reserved vacancy as Deputy Superintendent was regular and not temporary; therefore, his seniority must be reckoned from the date of his appointment to the promoted post under Rule 9(i) of the 1952 Rules, not inter se from the previous grade. Accordingly, appellant was entitled to be treated as senior and promoted to Superintendent on the dates respondents 2 and 3 were promoted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgments of High Court (LPA No. 224 of 1984 and writ petition No. 773 of 1977) set aside
  • Respondent No. 1 directed to treat appellant as promoted to Superintendent from the date respondents 2 and 3 were promoted