Supreme Court of India
JOYACHAN M. SEBASTIAN versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND ORS.
- Decided
- 23 August 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 193 · 1996 INSC 937
- Also cited as
- (1996) 10 SCC 291
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.
p. 193, margin F
The only question for consideration is : whether the appellant is entitled to seniority from September 21, 1983 when after passing the All India. Clerk Grade-II Examination he was posted as Clerk Grade-II at Television Station, Kohima or from March 26, 1987 when he was transferred to and posted at the Television Station, Trivandrum?
pp. 193–194, margin G
The admitted position is that after his initial appointment on September 21, 1983, the post which he was holding came to be abolished on account of administrative exigencies, on June 8, 1983. Thereupon, he was transferred and posted at his option to Tamil Nadu Doordarshan Kendra to Salem on August 6, 1984. He was further transferred to Trivandrum at his request on March 26, 1987. It is seen that when the seniority list was prepared as per the order of appointment, his seniority was shown not from the date of his initial appointment at Kohima. Therefore, he filed OA in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated July 6, 1994 made in OA No. 932 of 1994 dismissed the same. Thus this appeal by special leave.
p. 194
It is also not in dispute that he has mentioned in his application for transfer to Doordarshan Kendra, Trivandrum that he would not claim his seniority held in Salem w.e.f. August 19, 1984.
p. 194, margin D
Shri E.M.S. Anam, learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the transfer had come to be made due to administrative exigencies, viz., abolition of the post and creation of the post and availability of the vacancy in Tamil Nadu, the transfer was not on account of the request made by the appellant and that, therefore, the seniority had to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., September 21, 1983. We find no force in the contention.
p. 194, margin D
It is now settled legal posited that no abolition of the post, the holder of the post has no right to continue on the post. Instead of retrenching him as surplus, the Government have accommodated him in the available vacancy and, therefore, it must be deemed to be a fresh appointment for the purposes of seniority. After joining in Salem in Tamil Nadu, he made a request for transfer to Trivandrum and it is at his request that he was transferred. Consequently, on his undertaking in the application that he would not claim his seniority at Salem Station, the transfer was effected at his request. It is settled legal position that he would take his seniority as junior-most among the confirmed employees
p. 194, margin F
J.M. SEBASTIAN DIRECTOR GENERAL 195 in the transferee-region. A
p. 195
Considered from this perspective, we are of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error of law warranting interference.
p. 195
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. T.N.A Appeal dismissed.
p. 195