Seniority cannot be conferred on employees retrospectively from a date when they were not part of the cadre; substantive appointment or date of entry into the service is the proper criterion for seniority unless otherwise expressly provided by the service rules. This judgment affirms existing Supreme Court precedent and is binding authority for future service-related seniority disputes in Assam and analogous contexts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/307/2025 of BHAIRAB KUMAR NATH AND ORS Vs RANJU GOGOI BHAGAWATI AND ORS. |
| CNR | GAHC010180142025 |
| Date of Registration | 22-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Gauhati High Court jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms learned Single Judge’s decision and Supreme Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Seniority |
| Questions of Law | Whether retrospective seniority can be given to ad hoc employees regularized later, to the detriment of direct recruits appointed earlier through regular process. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Seniority must conform to statutory rules and cannot be awarded for a period individuals were not in the cadre. Service rules and Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution govern inter se seniority. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondents, directly recruited through APSC, joined service on 11.08.2003. Appellants were regularized later on 29.09.2003 with effect from 12.06.2003. Gradation list placed appellants above respondents based on retrospective effect. Respondents challenged this before the learned Single Judge, who found in their favour. Division Bench upheld this decision. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court in analogous service seniority matters |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that retrospective seniority for regularized employees is impermissible unless explicitly provided in service rules.
- Seniority of direct recruits cannot be disturbed by regularization of ad hoc appointees from a backdate.
- The final gradation list must reflect substantive appointments only, not retrospective regularization dates.
- The decision follows and strengthens Supreme Court precedent, providing clarity for future service and seniority disputes.
- Lawyers can use this judgment to challenge attempts to confer retrospective seniority in violation of service rules.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench examined the gradation list and the sequence of appointments, finding that respondents (direct recruits) joined before appellants’ services were regularized.
- The Court referred to Supreme Court rulings in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava & Anr. and Pawan Pratap Singh & Ors. v. Reevan Singh & Ors.
- Those judgments hold that seniority cannot be given retrospectively unless service rules specifically allow it; substantive appointment date is the correct basis for inter se seniority.
- It was emphasized that assigning retrospective seniority to employees not yet part of the cadre during the period in question would unfairly prejudice direct recruits.
- The Court found no reason to interfere with the learned Single Judge’s decision directing preparation of a revised gradation list reflecting correct seniority.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- Argued that since the Cabinet approved regularization from a retrospective date, the gradation list correctly placed them higher.
- Contended that in the absence of a challenge to the Cabinet’s decision, the final gradation list should not be disturbed.
Respondent:
- Challenged retrospective conferment of seniority to ad hoc employees, stating it was detrimental to direct recruits who joined earlier through an open recruitment process.
Factual Background
The dispute arose over the gradation list of Overseer (Civil) in the Assam Industries & Commerce Department. Respondents were directly recruited through APSC and joined on 11.08.2003. The appellants were regularized later by an order dated 29.09.2003, with effect from 12.06.2003. The final gradation list placed appellants above respondents based on the retrospective date of regularization, which the respondents challenged. The learned Single Judge ruled in favour of the respondents, and the Division Bench has now affirmed that judgment.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court discussed the principle that seniority is to be determined as per the applicable service rules.
- Cited Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, emphasizing equality and non-arbitrariness in employment matters.
- Referred to established interpretation that retrospective seniority can only be conferred if expressly provided for in the rules; otherwise, substantive appointment or date of entry is the standard.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were recorded in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents, evidentiary requirements, or suo motu guidelines were issued in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment expressly follows and applies existing Supreme Court precedent on the issue.