STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PURSHOTTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 25-10-1994 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in Transfer Application No. 743 of 1992.

(3.) The respondents 1 to 4 herein were appointed as Junior Engineers on work charged establishment on different dates by concerned Superintending Engineers of the Circle. Later on they were appointed as Junior Engineers in the regular establishment on different dates. There is no dispute that those respondents had the minimum educational qualification for being appointed as Junior Engineers in the regular establishment. They filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court claiming that their duties and responsibilities on the work charged establishment being the same as Junior Engineers on regular establishment, the period of service rendered by them as Junior Engineers on work charged establishment should be counted for their seniority after they have been absorbed in the regular establishment. After their absorption, when the seniority list of Junior Engineers was published in respect of Junior Engineers on regular establishment up to 31-3-1980 as well as in respect of Junior Engineers on regular establishment for the period 1-4-1980 till 31-3-1982, the names of the respondents did not find place, obviously because of the fact that they have been absorbed in regular establishment, after 31-3-1982, they approached the High Court. While the writ petition was pending, the Administrative Tribunal Act having been enforced and State Administrative Tribunal having been constituted, the writ petitions stood transferred to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the respondents contended that the Government having passed Resolution that the Junior Engineer having work charged service to his credit, should be assigned "deemed date" which should be one day prior to the date on which his immediate junior on work charged establishment or from open market was taken or appointed on regular temporary establishment in the same Circle, the services rendered on work charged establishment is therefore to be counted for the purpose of seniority on regular establishment and the authorities therefore committed error in not granting them the said relief. It was also contended that the relevant instructions of the Resolutions of the State Government dated 15-2-1977 and 19-3-1977 whereunder the services rendered on work charged establishment though is counted for the security of the employee at the Circle level but the same is not counted for the purpose of seniority of the employee in the State level and there is no reasonable nexus for making such differentiation and as such the Resolutions are discriminatory and should be struck down.