Integrated Seniority of LDCs and Typists: A Legal Analysis

In a significant legal ruling, the Supreme Court of India examined the intricacies of the integrated seniority of LDCs and Typists. The case involved a memorandum issued by the Board under Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, impacting the promotion and seniority of employees. The judgement sheds light on the complexities of categorizing and maintaining seniority lists in the workforce, setting a precedent for future cases in similar domains.

Facts

Respondent No. 12 and 13 issued a Memo dated 16.07.2002 clarifying the training period for LDCs/RCs for promotion as UDCs.
The training period for LDCs/RCs would be reckoned as the period in service for promotion as UDCs.
An integrated seniority list of LDCs/RCs/Typists was to be drawn without disturbing their original seniority.
LDCs/RCs/Typists are in different categories and have separate seniority lists.
The date of joining as Trainee LDCs/RCs was taken as the criteria for their integrated seniority.
The Memo dated 02.04.1994 was issued by the Board under Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act for integrated seniority of LDCs/RCs/Typists for promotion.
The Memo dated 16.07.2002 affirmed the validity of the earlier Memo as it addressed the training period of LDC/RCs for seniority purposes.
The appellants contested being superseded by the respondents for promotion to UDCs based on inter se seniority between typists and LDCs.
A writ petition was filed by the appellants to declare the Memo dated 16.07.2002 illegal and to prepare an integrated seniority list of LDCs and typists for UDC Division clerks’ promotion.
The Single Judge concluded that the integrated seniority of LDCs and Typists must adhere to Regulation 26 and Annexure-IV, rendering Memo dated 16.07.2002 inconsistent with the legal position.
The Memos dated 02.04.1994 and 16.07.2002 were deemed as executive instructions; hence, integrated seniority cannot be determined by them.
Due to MS 57 adding L.D.Cs, Typists, and Computer Operators to category 4(b) on 14.05.1992, the applicability of Regulation 26 became impractical.

Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash

Analysis

Regulations 10(8)(a), 23(a), and 8 require the appointing authority to fix the date of commencement of probation when integrating cadres and preparing the seniority list.
The appointing authority included the training period in the seniority list by exercising statutory powers under Regulation 25(a) and (b).
The Board has the duty to prepare a list of approved candidates for appointment or promotion.
The discretion exercised by the appointing authority under Regulation 25(a) cannot invalidate the list as long as it is done reasonably and without contravening any regulations.
No regulation specifically addresses integrated seniority lists under general or special regulations.
A memo dated 02.04.1994 issued by the erstwhile APSEB provided guidelines for the preparation of integrated seniority lists.
The memo dated 16.02.2002 issued by NPDC was a follow-up to the memo dated 02.04.1994 for proper implementation.
Regulation 26 does not address inter se seniority.
The issue of seniority for L.D.Cs posted in different sections, undergoing training, and facing potential hardship if seniority is counted from the completion of training is addressed.
The Division Bench view is agreed with and supported.
No grounds were found to interfere with the impugned order(s).
The appeals have been dismissed accordingly.