In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal, clarified the law regarding the determination of seniority among employees in a government cadre. The court ruled that employees promoted to a higher post cannot be granted seniority from a date when they were not even part of that cadre, emphasizing the established principle that seniority is determined by the date of entry into the cadre. This judgment came in the case of Mhabemo Ovung & Ors. v. M. Moanungba & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 9927 and 9928 of 2024), involving disputes over the seniority of Junior Engineers in Nagaland.
Background of the Case:
The case arose from a dispute over the seniority list of Junior Engineers in the Nagaland Public Works Department. The appellants, Mhabemo Ovung and others, were directly recruited Junior Engineers, selected through the Nagaland Public Service Commission and appointed in 2003 according to the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1997. The respondents, M. Moanungba and others, were Sectional Officers, Grade-I, whose positions were upgraded to Junior Engineers in 2007.
The controversy began when a final seniority list was circulated on March 26, 2018, placing the directly recruited Junior Engineers above those whose posts were upgraded. Aggrieved by this seniority list, the upgraded Sectional Officers filed writ petitions before the Nagaland High Court, challenging their placement. A Division Bench of the High Court set aside the seniority list and directed the department to refix the seniority, effectively granting the upgraded officers seniority from a date prior to their entry into the Junior Engineer cadre. This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court by both the directly recruited Junior Engineers and the State of Nagaland.
Legal Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Seniority: The main issue was whether the respondents, whose posts were upgraded to Junior Engineers in 2007, could claim seniority over those directly recruited in 2003.
2. Validity of Retrospective Seniority: Could seniority be granted retrospectively to employees from a date before they entered the cadre?
3. Compliance with Service Rules: Did the upgradation of posts from Sectional Officer, Grade-I, to Junior Engineer conform to the provisions of the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1997?
Important Observations of the Court:
Justice Rajesh Bindal, delivering the judgment, made several critical observations that shaped the court’s decision:
1. The court underscored that “seniority cannot be granted to employees from a date when they were not part of the cadre.” The principle is clear that an employee must first enter a cadre before claiming seniority within it.
2. The judgment stated:
> “The Division Bench of the High Court has committed a blatant error by directing that the upgraded Sectional Officers, Grade-I, be given seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers from a date on which they were not even born in the cadre. Such a decision is contrary to the principles of law governing seniority.”
3. The court highlighted that the earlier ruling by the Division Bench of the High Court had “misdirected itself” by considering irrelevant facts about the history of appointments from 1997 onwards, which did not pertain to the current issue of inter-se seniority after direct recruitment in 2003.
4. The court affirmed that any seniority granted retrospectively before an employee’s entry into the cadre was “legally impermissible,” reinforcing the established jurisprudence that seniority cannot be backdated unless explicitly provided by law or regulation.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal, set aside the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the upgraded employees could not claim seniority from a date earlier than their entry into the Junior Engineer cadre. The Court stated:
“The private respondents have been assigned seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers from the date on which they were not even born in the cadre, which is legally impermissible.”
The Court referred to its earlier rulings in State of Uttaranchal v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma (2007), P. Sudhakar Rao v. U. Govinda Rao (2013), and Ganga Vishan Gujrati v. State of Rajasthan (2019), emphasizing that seniority must be based on the actual date of entry into the cadre.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Mhabemo Ovung & Ors. v. M. Moanungba & Ors.
– Case Numbers: Civil Appeal Nos. 9927 of 2024 and 9928 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 17102 of 2021 and S.L.P.(C) No. 1136 of 2022)
– Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal
– Advocates for Appellants: P.S. Patwalia (for directly recruited Junior Engineers), K.N. Balgopal (for the State of Nagaland)
– Advocate for Respondents: Rana Mukherjee (for upgraded Sectional Officers)
