Supreme Court Upholds Seniority Rules for Junior Engineers in Postal Department

The case of Mrigank Johri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. revolves around the issue of seniority and service conditions of Junior Engineers who were deputed from All India Radio (AIR) to the Postal Department. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the petitioners, who were absorbed into the Postal Department, should have their seniority counted from their initial service in AIR or from the date of their absorption in the Postal Department.

Background of the Case

The appellants were appointed as Junior Engineers (Electrical) in All India Radio (AIR), New Delhi between 1987 and 1990. In 1996, they were offered an option for deputation to the Electrical Wing of the Postal Department (DOP). The key details of their absorption include:

The deputation period was initially two years.
The appellants requested permanent absorption in the Postal Department.
They agreed to the terms and conditions set by the Postal Department upon absorption.

However, a dispute arose when the absorbed Junior Engineers demanded that their seniority be calculated from their initial appointment in AIR rather than from the date of their absorption in the Postal Department. They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2004, which ruled in their favor. However, the Delhi High Court reversed the Tribunal’s order, leading the appellants to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Key Issues Before the Court

Were the absorbed Junior Engineers entitled to seniority from their initial appointment in AIR?
Were the terms and conditions of absorption legally binding?
Did the High Court err in setting aside the CAT order?

Arguments of the Petitioners (Mrigank Johri & Ors.)

The petitioners contended:

They had been regularly appointed in AIR before their deputation.
The Office Memorandum (OM) dated 22.12.1959 allowed them to retain their seniority.
They were compelled to accept absorption terms under duress.
The SI Rooplal case (2000) supported their claim that service in an equivalent post should be counted for seniority.

Arguments of the Respondents (Union of India & Postal Department)

The respondents countered:

The petitioners had voluntarily accepted new recruitment terms.
They had no vested right to claim seniority from AIR.
They were given full pay protection and other service benefits except seniority.
The Indu Shekhar Singh case (2006) upheld the validity of absorption conditions.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising Abhay Manohar Sapre and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, upheld the High Court’s ruling, making the following observations:

1. Terms of Absorption Were Legally Binding

The Court held that the petitioners had knowingly accepted the terms of their absorption.
They could have opted to return to AIR instead of seeking permanent absorption.
Senior engineers who had already been absorbed could not be displaced.

2. No Violation of Service Rules

The Court rejected claims that the absorption terms were unconstitutional.
It ruled that the Office Memorandum of 1959 was inapplicable since deputation was not a prescribed mode of recruitment in the Postal Department.

3. Precedents Do Not Apply

The Court distinguished the SI Rooplal case, stating that it involved a different factual matrix.
Instead, it relied on the Indu Shekhar Singh case, which upheld the validity of service conditions upon absorption.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s ruling.
The petitioners were required to retain their seniority from the date of absorption.
No relief was granted regarding their claims of duress or unfair treatment.

Conclusion

This ruling reaffirms the principle that employees who voluntarily accept service conditions cannot later claim rights contrary to those terms. The decision upholds the authority of government departments to impose reasonable conditions for absorption and ensures equity in service seniority.

For future cases, this judgment clarifies that:

Deputation does not guarantee automatic seniority upon absorption.
Employees must challenge unfair service conditions at the time of absorption, not years later.
Seniority disputes must align with the rules of the absorbing department, not the previous employer.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Mrigank Johri & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-07-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category