VIJAY KUMAR MISHRA Vs. SANJAY RUSIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue of seniority has always been a vexed question both in facts as well as in law. Eventually a senior person may gain an advantage like promotion or even higher scale of pay, but he will not accept the idea to work under a junior or to be a junior to one whom he thinks he is senior to him in law. Conception of seniority and idea of elderliness have always been the dominating factor in the history of mankind, whether it is ancient or the modern. One has noticed in this great country, the law of primogenitor was in prevalence in certain areas and that cannot be lightly thrown overboard though it might have a different compartment depending upon the facts and circumstances. To elaborate after 'Parsuram' by the command of his father, 'Yamadagni' who had harbored a different concept with regard to the chastity of his wife, desired her extinction. Four elder brothers refused to carry out the command but Parsuram did so without any kind of demur. When a boon was bestowed upon Parsuram, by his father, he asked for the revival of his brothers as well as of the mother but the fact remains that Parsuram could not combine the proper body with the head as a result of which the father declared Parsuram to be the eldest brother. The situation with regard to seniority is a question of this nature where none would like to buzz an inch and like to stay embedded on the pedestal of seniority whether he is in service or out of service. We have expressed the aforesaid prefatory note only to indicate that the private respondents herein who were working as Assistant Engineers and Sub -Engineers in the Bridge Corporation of the State of M.P. approached the State Administrative Tribunal invoked its jurisdiction under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 claiming seniority over the employees of the PWD who were so declared by virtue of a publication in the gradation list, when the seniority was fixed on the basis of change of policy by the State Government. To Continue the narration we may state that the Bridge Corporation of State of M.P. came into being by a conscious decision of the State of M.P. as at one point of time in the year 1978, it was best that the Corporation would be of immense assistance for carrying out the civil work which was being done by the Public Works Department. Certain higher officers were sent on deputation as admitted before us, to the Bridge Corporation of India. The company was constituted under section 617 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and accordingly Memorandum and Articles were work out with the passage of time the Corporation framed its rule for the purpose of recruitment of assistant engineers and sub -engineers. Initially some officers of the Corporation worked very hard and were able to complete the work prior to the date of the contract to avoid the cost of escalation but the spring was not to remain long and when the autumn got ushered in the Corporation was not in a position to perform its elevated role and carry out the work for which it was constituted. When a situation like it cropped up, the State Government thought it condign that the need of the Corporation was not necessary and the whole of it could be managed in a different manner. Keeping this view the policy decision was taken on 11 -2 -1992 vide Annexure P -10 narrating the history of the Corporation how it was constituted and how it made profits and how it landed itself in loss. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances the decision was taken by the Cabinet of the State Government for amalgamation/merger. We have been compelled to use these two words as synonyms as the Hindi version which finds place in the document is 'Samviliyan'. It is proper to mention here that in the letter Annexure P -11 dated 12 -5 -1993 the word Samviliyan (merger) is recorded. In pursuance of the aforesaid policy decision a circular was issued by the State Government vide Annexure P -13 dated 17 -2 -1993 wherein concerned clause find mention. Though the learned counsel for the parties have referred to in detail and read the entire thing, the real crux or hub of the matter pertains to what was provided with regard to determination of seniority of the employees of the Bridge Corporation, who would come under the Public Works Department on merger. That has been described in clause which reads as under : -

(2.) WHEN this policy came into force, it is worth while to state here that an application was filed before the Tribunal forming the subject matter of O.A. No. 844/93. In that case it was put forth that the seniority of the petitioners was not going to be affected. In the counter affidavit filed by the State it was stated as under: -

(3.) WHEN the matter stood thus, a different policy came into existence as contained in Annexure P -14. By the said Annexure, which was issued on the basis of cabinet decision taken it was stipulated as under : -