//
archives

Bhubaneswar

This tag is associated with 2 posts

inter se seniority – The inter se seniority between the appellants and respondent no. 1 in the Senior Branch cadre of Orissa Superior Judicial Service is the subject matter of this appeal. 3. In the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 before the High Court, the principal question under consideration was whether the service rendered by him (writ petitioner) in the Fast Track Court as Additional District Judge is to be taken into account while fixing his seniority after 1Page 2 regularization of his service in the Senior Branch cadre under the Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 (for short, “1963 Rules”). The High Court in the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2011 has answered the above question in favour of the writ petitioner, allowed the writ petition and directed the Orissa High Court on administrative side to treat the period of service rendered by the writ petitioner in the Fast Track Court for the purpose of seniority from the date of his joining the post i.e., 26.04.2002 and re-fix his seniority in light of the judgment. 4. The appellants, direct recruits, who were respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the writ petition, have challenged the above judgment principally on the ground that it is not consistent with the 1963 Rules, Orissa Judicial Service (Special Schemes) Rules, 2001 and Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007.- the service in FTCs will be deemed as service of the promoted judicial officers rendered in the parent cadre. However, no right would accrue to such recruits promoted/posted on ad hoc basis from the lower judiciary for regular promotion on the basis of such appointment. For direct recruits, continuation in service will be dependent on review by the High Court and there could be possibility of absorption in the regular vacancy if their performance was found to be satisfactory………..”. The Court noted that while appointing Fast Track Court Judges, it was clearly stipulated that such appointments would be ad hoc and temporary and that the appointees shall not derive any benefit from such appointments. We have already indicated above that on 05.01.2002 or 26.04.2002, there was no vacancy in the cadre of Superior Judicial Service (Senior Branch) for being filled up by promotion. Such vacancy in the Senior Branch cadre of the service occurred on 15.12.2003 and from that date the writ petitioner has been given benefit of his service rendered in the Fast Track Court. The administrative decision by the Full Court is in accord with the 1963 Rules, the 2001 Rules and the legal position already indicated above. The view of the Division Bench in the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable. The impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and is set aside. 52. Appeal is allowed, as above, with no order as to costs.

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2316 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 192 of 2012) Debabrata Dash and Anr. …… Appellants Vs. Jatindra Prasad Das & Ors. ……Respondents JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, J. Leave granted. 2. The inter se seniority between the appellants and respondent no. … Continue reading

Ex-cadre post – promotion etc., – Tribunal, therefore, refused the prayer of the respondent for permitting him to work in the Administrative Department as OSDcum-Deputy Director (Steel). – However, as regards the promotional prospect the Tribunal held as under :- “As regards his promotional prospects it is clear from the documents at Annexure 1 and 2 that the applicant was termed as a hold of ex-cadre post only after his actual appointment and no mention was made therein regarding his appointment against an ex-cadre post. We, therefore, suggest that the Directorate of Geology may consider the case of the applicant for career advancement vis-à- vis other comparable Class-I Engineers in service appointed in 1984 in the erstwhile Directorate of Mining an Geology (and later the Directorate of Geology) on the same footing as if he was appointed at par with other Engineers in 1984 and treating him as the junior most of that batch and consider him for promotion from the date his junior was so considered from time to time.”- we are of the view that the finding arrived at by the High Court that the post of Ore Engineer was for the first time treated as ex cadre post in the year 2005, is absolutely perverse and erroneous.- where the Members of the State Administrative Services made a claim that a number of ex-cadre or temporary posts which were temporary in nature and some of them 19Page 20 were created under the State Enactments which required their manning by IAS Officers. It was contended that on account of failure of the Central Government to timely review the cadre strength as statutorily required, the promotion of the promotees got inordinately delayed and they lost their seniority in the promoted cadre. The rule does not confer any right on the petitioners to seek a Mandamus for en cadring those ex-cadre/temporary posts. Any such Mandamus would run counter to the statutory provisions governing the creation of cadre and fixation of cadre strength which was held that asking the State or the Central Government for en cadrement of the ex cadre/temporary posts will amount to asking the Government to create more posts.- In the background of the law well settled by this Court, we are of the definite opinion that the direction issued by the Tribunal and the order of the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction. The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal as also by the High Court are, therefore, liable to be set aside. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the orders passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.97 of 2009 and the impugned order passed by the High Court.

Page 1 [ REPORTABLE] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1967 OF 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20635 of 2011) State of Orissa & Ors. …Appellants Vs. Sri Jagabandhu Panda …Respondent WITH C.A.No.1968 OF 2013 arising out of SLP(Civil) No.8676/2013 J U D G M E … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,076 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com