Altering Seniority List After A Long Period Is Unjust To Employees: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that altering a seniority list after a long period would be unjust to employees.
The Court upheld the decision of the Madras High Court which restored the seniority of the petitioners, who were senior to the appellant, both as per the date of initial appointment and also in the promotional post of skilled grade.
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “To alter a seniority list after such a long period would be totally unjust to the multitudes of employees who could get caught in the labyrinth of uncertainty for no fault of theirs and may suffer loss of their seniority rights retrospectively.”
AOR Vijay Kumar represented the appellant, while AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria appeared for the respondents.
A Government Order (GO) issued by the Ordinance Factory Board, Ministry of Defence, Government of India clarified the counting of seniority in trades applicable to the Industrial Establishments that the semiskilled grade employee in a factory was a trainee grade and the seniority will be counted from the date of promotion to the skilled grade and not from the date of induction/entry in the semi-skilled grade.
On similar grounds, the respondent submitted that the semi-skilled grade was only a trainee grade and to place an employee in the skilled grade, he would have to complete the probation period satisfactorily and also clear the trade test.
The Supreme Court reiterated that once an incumbent was appointed to a post according to the rules, their seniority had to be reckoned from the date of the initial appointment and not according to the date of confirmation unless the rules provided otherwise.
The Bench referred to its decision in Direct Recruit Class II Engg Officers’ Assn. v. v. State of Maharashtra (1990), wherein the Apex Court held that once an incumbent was appointed to a post according to rules, his seniority had to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation.
“Thus, it is trite that when an employee completes the probation period and is confirmed in service albeit with some delay, the confirmation in service shall relate back to the date of the initial appointment. Any departure from this principle in the form of statutory rules, executive instructions or otherwise must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,” the Court remarked.
The Bench reiterated the effect of altering the seniority list at a belated stage and how it may adversely affect the employees whose seniority and rank had been determined in the meantime.
Consequently, the Court observed that “much water has flown under the bridge and retrospective application of the GO…would open floodgates of litigation” and would disturb the seniority of many employees causing them “grave prejudice and heartburn as it would disturb the crystallized rights regarding seniority, rank and promotion which would have accrued to them during the intervening period.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 748)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Vijay Kumar and Prashant Bhushan; Advocate Anurag Tiwary
Respondents: AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria and Abid Ali Beeran P
