Summary
The Supreme Court upheld bottom seniority for an employee absorbed at his own repeated request after deputation, having expressly accepted treatment as a fresh appointee. The governing memorandum’s exception for transfers not strictly in public interest applied; the public-exigency deputations in Rooplal were distinguishable. To avoid demotion after prolonged litigation, the Court protected the employee’s current post through an ex-cadre or supernumerary arrangement without changing seniority.
Issues
- Whether an employee absorbed on personal request and express bottom-seniority terms could later claim earlier service for seniority.
- What protection was appropriate for promotions earned during prolonged litigation.
Held
- The employee’s insistence secured absorption despite the department seeking his return. He accepted the express fresh-appointment and junior-most conditions and did not directly challenge them; he could not evade those conditions through the later seniority-list challenge. (¶¶ 4, 5, 11, 14, 15, 16)
- The memorandum’s general provision for recognising equivalent-grade service was qualified where transfer was not strictly in public interest. That qualification applied here. Rooplal concerned urgent public-service deputations and inadequate disclosure of absorption terms, so did not control this personal-request absorption. (¶¶ 6, 12, 13, 17, 18)
- The Court disapproved an unexplained shift in the Union’s affidavit position and called for closer departmental scrutiny. Because respondent 1 had meanwhile reached the post of Assistant, maintaining correct seniority need not entail his demotion; an ex-cadre or supernumerary post was directed to preserve his position. (¶¶ 20, 21)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside and original seniority maintained. Respondent 1 protected from demotion by creation of an ex-cadre or supernumerary post, without affecting the seniority list. Parties to bear their own costs.