Service Law: Regularization in Service – Respondents were appointed as Assistant Managers in the service of appellant on contract for a period of one year in 2000 – They continued till 2006 – They were initially regularized in service on 23.02.2006 – In 2007, however, order of regularization was cancelled - Single Judge set aside the order by which the regularization of the respondents was cancelled and directed to reinstate respondents in service with retrospective effect – However, no arrears of salary were granted – Upon their regularization, respondents were promoted as Deputy Managers in 2014 – In 2016, Committee was constituted for the scrutiny of the seniority and promotion of regular employees in the managerial service of Appellant – Committee finalized the seniority list in 2017 – Respondents filed writ petition challenging it to the extent that they were held not entitled to count the period of service when they stood retrenched towards increments and promotion – High Court allowed writ petitions and directed to grant promotion to the respondents along with arrears of salary for the period when they were out of service and the period during which they were kept out of service to be treated as notional service in the post of Manager and Chief Manager – On appeal, held: There was no justification to exclude the period during which the respondents were not in service due to the illegal termination of employment which was subsequently set aside – The order by which regularization of respondents was cancelled was set aside by High Court with direction to reinstate them in service with retrospective effect from 12.09.2007 – This clearly implied that they were entitled to benefit of continuity of service – However, respondents shall not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period they were out of service – Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Rules – r.18.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: The judgment of the Single Judge dated 9 October 2009, saves the respondents continuity of service. Therefore, there was no justification to exclude the period during which the respondents were not in service due to the illegal termination of employment, which was subsequently set aside, given that the High Court expressly saved the continuity of service. The contention that the respondents did not satisfy the one year residency rule in the post for the purpose of promotion is without merit. The only distinction between the respondents and ‘AB’ is that unlike the former, the latter was in service throughout. ‘AB’, though appointed in 2008 in the post of Assistant Manager was regularized retrospectively only in 2014. Inspite of not fulfilling the one year residency criteria in each post (that is as Deputy Manager and Manager), he was still promoted taking into account his service as the Assistant Manager. However, this distinction between the parties diminishes in view of the direction of the Single Judge to grant continuity of service to the respondents. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned judgment. However, it only needs to be clarified that since the respondents as well as ‘AB’ hold the post of Manager from which the next promotion is to the post of Chief Manager, the promotional post of Chief Manager shall be filled up in accordance with the applicable Service Rules and regulations. [Para 23][1019-D-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.