A division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, delivered a landmark judgment in a seniority dispute involving Public Works Department (PWD) engineers. The court ruled that retrospective seniority cannot be granted to an employee for a period when they were not yet part of the cadre, emphasizing that such actions could unjustly affect others and perpetuate administrative inefficiency.
Case Background
The case arose from a dispute between promoted Assistant Engineers and direct recruits in the Chhattisgarh PWD regarding their placement in the seniority list. The appellants, led by Anuj Sharma and three others, were promoted to Assistant Engineers (Civil) following Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) recommendations in July 2008 and joined their posts in September 2008.
Simultaneously, direct recruits were appointed to the same cadre in August 2008. The initial seniority list of 2009 placed the promotees above the direct recruits. However, a 2023 government order revised this arrangement, placing direct recruits above the promotees based on their earlier dates of cadre appointment. This change prompted the appellants to challenge the decision.
Important Legal Issues
1. Basis for Seniority Determination
The court analyzed whether promotees could claim seniority from the date of DPC recommendation (July 2008) or their joining date (September 2008), despite not being part of the cadre at the time of the direct recruits’ appointments.
2. Impact of Long-Standing Seniority
The case also addressed whether a long-standing seniority list, maintained for over a decade, could be revised without violating principles of justice and administrative consistency.
3. Retrospective Seniority Rules
The bench deliberated on whether granting retrospective seniority could adversely affect the rights of other employees, as no employee can claim seniority for a period when they were not part of the cadre.
Key Observations of the Court
The bench quoted extensively from precedents, including K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh and State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, and highlighted critical principles:
– On Retrospective Seniority:
“Retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others.”
– On Administrative Stability:
“Matters like one’s position in the seniority list, once settled, should not be reopened after a long period, as it leads to uncertainty and inefficiency in service.”
The court emphasized that retrospective seniority is permissible only when explicitly provided by statutory rules and must align with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Decision of the Court
The division bench upheld the revised seniority list prepared by the state government in 2023, agreeing with the Single Judge’s earlier ruling. The court held that the appellants’ claim for seniority from the date of DPC recommendation was untenable, as they were not part of the cadre when the direct recruits were appointed.
The bench observed:
“Granting retrospective seniority to the appellants would not only disrupt the legitimate rights of direct recruits but also violate the principles of equity and administrative efficiency. Illegality cannot be perpetuated under the guise of long-standing seniority.”
Case Details
– Case Number: WA No. 616 of 2024
– Appellants: Anuj Sharma and others
– Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh and private respondents, including direct recruits
– Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
– Counsel for Appellants: Mr. Sunil Otwani, assisted by Mr. Shobhit Koshta
– Counsel for State: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General
– Counsel for Private Respondents: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Sourabh Dangi
