Pay Protection Granted To Govt Employee In One Cadre Can’t Be Used To Justify Claim For Seniority In Another Cadre: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand Excessive Courtroom has dominated that pay safety or the counting of previous service for pensionary advantages doesn’t entitle a authorities worker to say seniority in a distinct service/cadre to which they shift to voluntarily.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar referred to Supreme Courtroom’s resolution in Director of College Training v. A.N. Kandaswamy, whereby it was held that merely as a result of the previous providers had been counted for the aim of defending the “pay” and awarding choice or particular grade, it can’t be mentioned that worker involved continued to belong to the identical previous cadre.
“Thus it’s thought of view of this Courtroom that giving pay safety or counting the mentioned interval for pensionary profit can not have any concern with the difficulty of seniority as a result of motive that if there might be any disturbance within the seniority then it’s going to have influence upon the opposite staff within the service or the cadre whereas giving pay safety or counting the interval for pensionary profit could have no influence upon the opposite public servant somewhat it was for the good thing about particular person having no concern with the opposite members of the service or cadre.”
The remark was made in response to the competition that if the appellants are given “pay safety” with respect to their previous providers within the Jharkhand Administrative Service (which they left to hitch Police Service), then the identical size of service needs to be counted for deciding their seniority by contemplating their providers from the preliminary date of appointment.
It additional noticed that seniority can’t be reckoned from the date of incidence of the emptiness and can’t be given retrospectively until it’s so expressly supplied by the related Service Guidelines. Additional, the date of entry in a specific service or the date of substantive appointment is the most secure criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or the opposite or between one group of officers and the opposite recruited from completely different sources, it mentioned.
The ruling was delivered in an enchantment filed by three individuals–Binod Kumar Mahto, Shashi Prakash, and Ajay Kumar, difficult the dismissal of a writ petition by a Single Choose bench which held that the three people voluntarily selected to hitch the police service when given the choice to take action. Subsequently, the only choose mentioned, that they can not declare that becoming a member of the service was a coverage resolution binding them to it attributable to which they can not demand seniority from the date of their preliminary appointment.
The appellants had initially been appointed to the Jharkhand Administrative Service in 2010 following a 2007 commercial issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Fee.
Though that they had opted for the police service as their first choice, they had been chosen for the executive posts based mostly on benefit. They subsequently joined as Circle Officer and Block Improvement Officer in numerous districts. In 2011, when six vacancies for the put up of Deputy Superintendent of Police remained unfilled attributable to medical disqualifications or different causes, the State Authorities issued a press be aware calling for choices from eligible candidates who had listed police service as their first selection.
The appellants utilized and had been formally appointed to the police service in July, 2012. Nonetheless, within the seniority checklist of the Jharkhand Police Service dated 29 Could 2020 and revised once more on 4 January 2023, they had been positioned under different officers, together with Manish Toppo, whom they claimed to have outperformed within the recruitment course of.
They claimed that their seniority within the police service be counted from 12 August 2010, the date they joined the executive service. In addition they cited Clause 2(Kh)(iii) of a 1972 Departmental Round, arguing that their switch was based mostly on a authorities coverage resolution and thus their earlier service needs to be counted. Moreover, they contended that since that they had been granted pay safety, the identical interval must be thought of for figuring out seniority.
The Excessive Courtroom, nonetheless, rejected all these contentions and observed that the petitioners had not been transferred between posts or cadres inside the identical service, however had voluntarily modified from one service to a different.
Stressing the authorized distinction, the Courtroom noticed, “The Jharkhand Administrative Service and Jharkhand Police Service within the capability of Dy.S.P. are two completely different providers beneath the State of Jharkhand… Subsequently, it’s evident from the case of the appellants/writ petitioners itself that they’re looking for to depend the seniority from the date once they had been in numerous service construing themselves to be in the identical cadre despite the fact that they’ve come within the completely different service of Jharkhand Police Service holding the put up of Dy.S.P.”
The Courtroom additional said that the officers weren’t compelled by any coverage to shift to the police service however had exercised that choice of their very own volition when vacancies arose. The Courtroom made it clear that this voluntary selection eliminated the matter from the scope of the 1972 Round.
It held, “It can’t be mentioned that it was a coverage resolution by which appellants had been sure to hitch police service subsequently declare of the appellants doesn’t come inside the horizon of the Round of 1972 since they picked willingly to shift their service as a result of vacancies existed however proper doesn’t accrue of their favour for claiming their seniority from the date of preliminary appointment.”
The Courtroom reiterated in its judgment that seniority should stream from the date of entry into the service and never be altered based mostly on relative benefit as soon as appointments are made. It held, “The seniority of the appellants is to be thought of from the date of inducting within the service, i.e., w.e.f. the yr 2012 whereas the candidates who’re beneath the reserved class had joined previous to the becoming a member of of the appellants and as per the fundamental precept to find out the seniority which is to be counted from the date of entry within the service, thus, the mentioned declare of the appellants/writ petitioners can’t be sustainable, accordingly, rejected.”
On the query of parity with one other officer, who was allegedly positioned increased regardless of having related or decrease marks, the Courtroom refused to entertain the comparability, declaring that this challenge was not raised earlier than the Single Choose and that the officer had joined the police service instantly, not like the appellants.
The Courtroom affirmed the Single Choose’s reasoning and noticed that the officers had entered the police service in 2012, and thus their seniority could be counted from that yr, not earlier.
It held, “Realized Single Choose has meticulously examined the aforesaid challenge by taking into account the settled place of legislation that common service can’t be reckoned from a date when the worker was not even borne within the service and seniority amongst members needs to be counted from the date of preliminary entry into the mentioned service, requires no interference by this Courtroom.”
The enchantment was thus dismissed.
Case Title: Binod Kumar Mahto & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case Quantity: L.P.A. No. 204 of 2024
