Niranjan Prasad Sinha and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Niranjan Prasad Sinha and anr. vs Union of India and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided May 09, 2001

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/652644

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/652644
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik and;Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan
Decided On: May 09, 2001
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Coram: Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan - [P.N. Bhagwati, C.J. and; V. Khalid, JJ.] In Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd., [1984] 1 SCR 347, this Court held that under s.4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, only those expenses which were incurred on account of factors...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Niranjan Prasad Sinha and anr.

Respondent

Union of India and ors.

Advocate Mr. Kaushik

Legal References

Reported In: AIR2001SC2269; JT2001(Suppl1)SC362; 2001LabIC1799; 2001(4)SCALE51; (2001)5SCC564; [2001]3SCR636; 2001(2)SCT1055(SC); 2001(3)SLJ190(SC)

Excerpt

..... - [p.n. bhagwati, c.j. and; v. khalid, jj.] in union of india v. bombay tyres international ltd., [1984] 1 scr 347, this court held that under s.4 of the central excise and salt act, 1944, only those expenses which were incurred on account of factors contributing to the product's value upto the date of sale or the date of deliv- ery at the factory. gate were liable to be included in the assessable value. on november 14/15, 1983 the court made a clarificatory order wherein it was stated that discounts allowed in the trade (by whatever name called) should be allowed to be deducted from the sale price having regard to the nature of the goods, if established under agreements or under terms of sale or by established practice, and that such allowance and the nature of discount should be known at or prior to the removal of the goods and should not be disallowed only because they were not payable at the time of each invoice or deducted from the invoice price. the respondent-rubber factory claimed various deductions of the nature of post-manufacturing expenses for determining the assessable value of their products under s.4 of the act which were disallowed by the excise authorities. its writ petitions were, however, allowed by the high court. in appeals by the union of india for setting aside the high court judgment it was contended for the respondent: (a) that the tac/ warranty discount, which was sought to be deducted for determining the assessable value, satisfied all the criteria of a trade discount stipulated in the clarifi- catory order; (b) that the claim for deduction of product discounts--prompt payment discount, year-ending discount and campaign discount--was justified on the same reasoning; (c) that the interest on finished goods from the date the stocks were cleared till the date of sale was a proper deduction for determination of the assessable value; (d) that the claim for deduction of interest on receivables (sundry debtors for sales) was justified on..........written examination, the promotees could not have been shown senior to the appellants in the seniority list as has been done by the impugned list. it is not disputed that all along the appellants were senior to the promotees in all grades and in fact in the earlier seniority list for fireman grade a, the appellants were shown senior to the above promotees. however, this seniority list was changed by the impugned seniority list by placing the appellants below the promotees which was challenged before the tribunal. the tribunal upheld the impugned seniority list. hence, the present appeal.3. the stand of the respondent was that by the circular of the railway board dated 25.06.1985 for restructuring of the above posts the board only conveyed a general decision but keeping in view fast technological changes, the respondents in order to find out more efficient persons for promotion conducted written examinations on the basis of the earlier circular of the railway board dated 17.12.1982 and as the promotees qualified through written test, they were placed senior to the appellants.4. the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, mr. mishra has contended that in view of clause 5 of the circular of the railway board dated 26.05.1985, as the next higher post for promotion of the appellants was fireman grade a, they were entitled to be promoted the that grade only on scrutiny of 'service records without holding any written and/or viva-voce test' and therefore they were legally promoted. it has been urged that the promotees who were promoted subsequently, though selected through written tests, could not have been placed above the appellants in the seniority list. in reply mr. kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that as the promotees were selected after written tests in terms of the circular of the railway board dated 17.12.1982 and being found efficient they were rightly shown senior to the appellants.5. the relevant clause 5.1 of the circular.....

Full Judgment

Phukan, J.

1. In this appeal the two appellants have assailed the order dated 26.05.1995 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna. The Tribunal rejected the prayer of the appellants for quashing the seniority list issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer (Danapur Division) Danapur, Patna.

2. Initially the appellants were appointed as Cleaners in Eastern Railway (Danapur Division) Danapur and thereafter promoted to post of Fireman Grade C. On 11.10.1985 they were promoted to the post of Fireman Grade B. The Railway Administration decided to restructure the posts of Fireman and accordingly on 25.06.1985, the Railway Board issued a circular and as a result of such restructuring the appellants became Fireman Grade A with effect from 1.1.1986. This restructuring was done as a sequel to the report of the Pay Revision Commission. After the appellants were so posted as Fireman Grade A, the respondents held written examinations on different dates. On the basis of the results of the said examinations, 31 persons were promoted from Grade B to Grade A on 6.8.1985 and thereafter 23 and 31 more persons were so promoted on 7.2.1986 and on 8.7.1986. The appellants have alleged that as they were promoted as Fireman Grade A prior to the promotions of the above persons after written examination, the promotees could not have been shown senior to the appellants in the seniority list as has been done by the impugned list. It is not disputed that all along the appellants were senior to the promotees in all Grades and in fact in the earlier seniority list for Fireman Grade A, the appellants were shown senior to the above promotees. However, this seniority list was changed by the impugned seniority list by placing the appellants below the promotees which was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the impugned seniority list. Hence, the present appeal.

3. The stand of the respondent was that by the circular of the Railway Board dated 25.06.1985 for restructuring of the above posts the Board only conveyed a general decision but keeping in view fast technological changes, the respondents in order to find out more efficient persons for promotion conducted written examinations on the basis of the earlier circular of the Railway Board dated 17.12.1982 and as the promotees qualified through written test, they were placed senior to the appellants.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, MR. Mishra has contended that in view of Clause 5 of the circular of the Railway Board dated 26.05.1985, as the next higher post for promotion of the appellants was Fireman Grade A, they were entitled to be promoted the that grade only on scrutiny of 'service records without holding any written and/or viva-voce test' and therefore they were legally promoted. It has been urged that the promotees who were promoted subsequently, though selected through written tests, could not have been placed above the appellants in the seniority list. In reply Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that as the promotees were selected after written tests in terms of the circular of the Railway Board dated 17.12.1982 and being found efficient they were rightly shown senior to the appellants.

5. The relevant Clause 5.1 of the circular of the Railway Board dated 25.06.1985 is quoted below:

'5.1 - ...However, for the purpose of implementation of these order if an individual railway servant becomes due for promotion to only one grade above the grade of the post held by him is classified as a 'Selection Post', the existing selection procedure will stand modified in such a case to the extent that the selection will be based only on scrutiny of service records without holding any written and/or viva-voce test. Under this procedure, the categorisation 'Outstanding' will not exist.'

(Emphasis ours)

6. We have perused the circular and in view of the clear language of Clause 5.1, the contention put forward on behalf of the respondents is not sustainable. By the above circular, the Board has taken a positive decision that an employee due for promotion to only one grade above the grade of the post held by him, promotion would be only on the basis of scrutiny of service records and without holding any test.

7. There is no dispute that Fireman grade A is one grade above the post of Fireman Grade B, therefore, in terms of the above clause the appellants were entitled to be promoted to the post of Grade A only on scrutiny of their service records and it was so done by the respondents as they promoted the appellants to the post of Fireman Grade A on 1.1.1986, the date on which restructuring was done as per the above circular. We are, therefore, of the view that the promotion of the appellants was legal and proper.

8. It is well settled that in absence of any rule, seniority in a particular Grade has t be determined on the basis of length of continuous service in that Grade. The appellants were legally promoted Fireman Grade A whereas the promotees were promoted subsequently. It is an admitted position that appellants were senior to the promotees in all the grades of posts of Fireman. No rules have been placed before us to show that persons promoted on the basis of written test would get seniority over the persons promoted under Clause 5.1. We, therefore, hold that the impugned seniority list where the appellants were shown junior to the promotees is contrary to the legal position and accordingly it is quashed.

9. We find merit in the present appeal and it is allowed with the direction to the respondents to draw up a fresh seniority list placing the appellants above the promotees in the post of Fireman Grade A. The revised seniority list shall be published within a period of 3 months. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their own cost of this appeal.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 2001 Same Parties Niranjan Prasad Sinha and anr. vs Union of India and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik and;Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan

Service