JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The judgment of the learned Tribunal which is impugned in this writ petition is dated 19th September, 2001 passed in Original Application No. 1132/99. By the said order, the Original Application filed by the respondents herein was allowed. This brief order reads as under:
“Heard both sides.
2. We are satisfied that the applicants claims are fully covered by the Tribunal’s order date 28.11.2000 in OA-2455/98 (G.L. Madan v. U.O.I. and Ors.) and connected case.
3. Under the circumstances, this OA is disposed of with a direction to respondents to extent the same benefits as contained in the aforesaid order dated 28.11.2000, to the applicants in the present OA as expeditiously as possible. No costs.”
2. As the learned Tribunal only extended the benefit of judgment in G.L. Madan’s case (supra), it would be necessary to find out the issue which was decided in the G.L. Madan’s case (supra) . The applicants in the aforesaid case were LDCs who were promoted to the posts of the Assistants on adhoc basis. They belonged to Central Secretariat Services Cadre and were governed by the Central Secretariat Services Rules, 1962 (for short ‘CSS Rules’). The respondents therein prepared a list of UDCs for the purpose of regular promotions to the posts of Assistants and sought to revert those applicants who were working as Assistants on adhoc basis. The validity of the seniority list of the UDCs as well as their threatened reversion was challenged by the said applicants. The plea of the applicants was that even for the purpose of temporary promotions a common seniority list had to be prepared from amongst of the members of the service in UDC grade in all the cadres in the Secretariat, namely, of all the Ministries, by the Department of Personnel and Training which is the cadre controlling authority and on the basis of their relative seniority of the members, promotions/transfers etc. should be effected. As a corollary even for the purpose of reversion of an Assistant on adhoc promotion, the same common seniority list had to be followed and only the junior most member of the service should be reverted first. They contended that the individual Ministry could not be treated as a separate cadre either for the purpose of promotion or for reversion. The respondents’ case was that the posts of Section Officers and Assistants were decentralised into 33 cadres comprising one or more Ministry/Department. Depending upon existence of the vacancies in each cadre, the Department of Personnel and Training compiles and intimates the Staff Selection Commission as to the number of vacancies to be filled up against 50% vacancies quota meant for promotion as per Rule 13(6) of the CSS Rules. the respondents further explained that as the process for making regular appointment/recruitment takes some time the cadre controlling authority can make adhoc arrangements by promoting UDCs on adhoc basis subject to their eligibility/fitness for specified period or till the vacancies are filled up on a regular basis whichever is earlier. These adhoc appointments were resorted as stop-gap arrangement which is purely fortuitous and cannot give rise to any claim to seniority regular appointment in that grade. Such appointments are terminated when regular officers become available to fill up the vacancies. After a detailed discussion, the learned Tribunal gave judgment dated 28th November, 2000 accepting the contention of the applicants therein. It held:
“Para 13: It is not known why the rules are not being followed in preparing the common seniority list of each grade for the purpose of promotion/temporary promotion in accordance with Rule 13(7) of the CSS Rules. As stated supra, grade was defined as the grade specified in Rule 3 which deals with the composition of the service. Assistant Grade comprising of Group ‘B’ ministerial, is one of the grades in the Central Secretariat Service. The grade cannot be restricted to each cadre for the purpose of Rule 13(7). The cadre may have been decentralised but not a grade. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 13 speaks of preparation of common seniority list for Assistant Grade in all Secretariat Service and to make temporary promotions and in case of non-availability of officers/vacancies within the range of seniority in a particular cadre then they should be accommodated in another cadre.
Para 14: Though, the applicants are junior most in their cadre but it is not the case of the respondents that they are juniormost officers in the particular grade and that the allegations that there are several juniors working in the other Ministries in the grade is not disputed.
Para 15: In the circumstances, the OAs should succeed. The respondents shall prepare a common seniority list in relation to UDC grade service in all the cadres specified in the first Schedule in terms of Rule 2(hh) of the CSS Rules, 1962 and shall not revert the applicants, if there are any juniors to the applicants in the other cadre/Ministries continuing in the grade of Assistants, on adhoc basis or until the regularly selected Assistants are promoted in their places. The common seniority list shall be prepared within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
3. Obviously, the case of the respondents herein in Original Application No. 1132/99 was identical and that led the learned Tribunal to pass the brief order extending the benefits in the case of G.L. Madan (supra) .
4. Mr. Harish Chander, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the approach of the learned Tribunal was not correct and it was not possible, even for making adhoc arrangements, to do so on All India basis by adhering to common seniority list. He submitted that this would lead to many practical and administrative difficulties if even for stop-gap arrangements, the All India seniority is operated. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. R. Swaminathan and Ors. to buttress his aforesaid submission.
5. On the other hand, Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents made same very submissions as were made before the learned Tribunal and sought to justify the order of the learned Tribunal by asserting that in making local arrangement while giving adhoc promotions, many juniors in a particular Ministry were preferred to the seniors working in other Ministries/Departments. He submitted that if it was only stop-gap arrangement which were to last for short period, the same was understandable but such adhoc promotions when continued for years together give undue advantage to the juniors.
6. It is not necessary to deal with these contentions in great details as answer to these very submissions is found in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in R. Swaminathan and Ors. (supra). The Supreme Court in the said case was confronted with the same situation. In fact because of such adhoc promotions at local level to juniors which remained for quite some time, they started getting higher pay as compared to their seniors who were not so officiating before their regular promotions. the seniors had claimed stepping up of their pay with reference to their juniors’ pay taking shelter of the Fundamental Rules 22(I’), its proviso and Rule 26(A). This contention of the seniors was rejected by the Supreme Court holding that Rule 22 had no application as the difference in the pay of juniors and seniors was not as a result of the said Fundamental Rule and the higher pay received by a junior was on account of his earlier officiation in the higher post because of local officiating promotion. The court then dealt with the question of validity of granting such local officiating promotions and put the stamp of approval to this practice of the Government even if it found some justification in the grievance of the seniors being deprived of a chance to officiate in the higher post. Para 12 of the judgment dealt with this aspect which reads thus:
“Para 12: The aggrieved employees have contended with some justification that local officiating promotions within a Circle have resulted in their being deprived of a chance to officiate in the higher post, if such chance of officiation arises in a different Circle. They have submitted that since there is all-India seniority for regular promotions, this all-India seniority must prevail even while making local officiating appointments within any Circle. The question is basically of administrative exigency and the difficulty that the administration may face if even short-term vacancies have to be filled on the basis of all-India seniority by calling a person who may be stationed in a different Circle in a vacancy arises, and that too for a short duration. This is essentially a matter of administrative policy. But the only justification for local promotions is their short duration. If such vacancy is of a long duration there is no administrative reason for not following the all-India seniority. Most of the grievances of the employees will be met if proper norms are laid down for making local officiating promotions. One thing, however, is clear. Neither the seniority nor the regular promotions of these employees is affected by such officiating local arrangements. The employees who have not officiated in the higher post earlier, however, will not get the benefit of the proviso to Fundamental Rule 22.”
7. It is, therefore, clear that the court approved it as a matter of administrative policy when local promotions are made for short duration. The Supreme Court also held that if the vacancy is of a long duration there is no administrative reason for not following the all-India seniority. The Supreme Court also felt it desirable if proper norms are laid down for making local officiating promotions.
8. In the face of the aforesaid mandate of the Supreme Court, the view taken in G.L. Madan’s case (supra) by the learned Tribunal cannot be held to be correct in law. We may observe here that the learned Tribunal relied upon Rule 13 Sub-rule (7) of CCS Rules which deals with ‘Temporary Vacancy’ to hold that for temporary promotions, common seniority list was to be applied. However, the connotation of “temporary vacancy” would be clearly different from “adhoc promotion” made by way of stop-gap arrangement pending filling up of the said posts on regular basis. Admittedly, the posts in question against which adhoc promotions were made were regular posts and not temporary vacancies. Rule 13(A) of CCS Rules specifically deals with ‘Adhoc Promotions’ and the promotions in question were made under the Rule 13(A). No doubt it is provided in the said Rule that adhoc promotion would normally not exceed two months. However, if such adhoc promotion exceeded two months, it cannot be said that the promotions were under Rule 13(7) and not under Rule 13(A) of CCS Rules. It is here where the learned Tribunal erred in treating the promotions in question as against temporary vacancies falling under Rule 13(7). It could not be when no such temporary vacancies were created and sought to be filled up but the adhoc promotions were resorted to, admittedly against the regular vacancies, as stop-gap arrangement till the regular vacancies are filled up.
9. However, we may state that once the promotions are made on adhoc basis, these adhoc promotions should not be allowed to continue for long period and it is incumbent upon the petitioners to take immediate steps for filling up of the vacancies on regular basis. Some times there may be genuine reasons which may delay the process of filling up of the vacancies on regular basis, say for example, stay granted by a competent court of law. However, if there is no such impediment, there is no reason why steps be not taken to fill up such vacancies on regular basis. Even in R. Swaminathan and Ors., the Supreme Court felt that aggrieved employees had some justification in contenting that local officiating promotions within a Circle had resulted in being deprived of a chance to officiate in the higher post. However, while still approving such a course because of administrative exigencies, the court in no uncertain terms, remarked that the only justification for local promotions was their short duration and if such vacancies are for a long duration there was no administrative reason for not following the all-India seniority. Therefore, whenever such adhoc promotions are to be made for a long duration, even for these adhoc promotions, the petitioners are under obligation to follow the all-India seniority. We may notice that in the present case also the adhoc promotions continued for quite some time. However, what is important to note that thereafter the petitioners took steps for filling up of the posts on regular basis and the respondents were sought to be reverted when regular incumbents to the posts of Assistants were available who were selected after following the procedure as per Rules. It is because of this reason that on 3rd May, 1999 7 out of 8 respondents had already been reverted to their substantive posts of UDCs as a result of regular incumbents to the posts of Assistants reporting for duty. The petitioners had done this exercise of making regular appointments on the basis of the all-India seniority. Once this exercise was done and no persons junior to the respondents in the seniority list maintained by the petitioners were allowed to continue as Assistants on adhoc basis, there was no reason for the learned Tribunal to interfere in the matter.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The judgment of the leaned Tribunal is set aside.
11. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.