Joining Within Extended Period Entitles Employee To Seniority From Original Appointment Date: Delhi HC

Background Facts

An advertisement for three posts of Assistant Professor in Ophthalmology was issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The petitioner applied for the post and participated in the selection process. She was successful. An appointment letter was issued to her on 30.03.2006. She was posted at JIPMER, Pondicherry but she did not join there.

Aggrieved by her posting, the petitioner alleged that respondents 5 and 6 were ineligible for appointment. Therefore, she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. She sought reliefs including posting in Delhi. The Tribunal initially directed that her offer of appointment shall not be cancelled, however, the interim order was later vacated on 25.01.2007. Then the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The Court did not interfere with the Tribunal's order but extended the time for her to join duties till 21.02.2007. Therefore, the Tribunal also extended the time for joining till 05.03.2007. The petitioner joined her posting at JIPMER on 01.03.2007, within the extended time granted by the Tribunal. Later, the Tribunal dismissed her original application on 25.05.2007. It was held that she had no vested right to be posted in Delhi and her other claims were without merit.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition claiming seniority from the date of her appointment letter i.e. 30.03.2006.

It was submitted by the petitioner that she had joined the post of Assistant Professor in Ophthalmology at JIPMER on 01.03.2007 within the extended period granted by the Delhi High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, her seniority should be counted from the date of issuance of the appointment letter i.e. 30.03.2006, and not from the actual date of joining. The petitioner relied upon the Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2021. It was further contended that other persons who had joined duty, were granted retrospective seniority from the date of issuance of their appointment letters. In support of this submission, the petitioner relied on Office Order dated 30.10.2019.

The petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Narwal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., wherein it was held that once an appointee joins within the extended period allowed by the competent authority or by court order, the joining shall be deemed to have been made within the original time limit stipulated in the appointment letter.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that the petitioner had failed to join her duties within the time originally stipulated in the appointment letter dated 30.03.2006. Therefore, she cannot claim seniority from that date. It was contended that the extension of joining time granted by the High Court and the Tribunal was only by way of interim measures and did not create any vested right in favor of the petitioner to seek retrospective seniority.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the petitioner did not join her post within the period originally mentioned in the appointment letter dated 30.03.2006, therefore the High Court had extended the time for joining till 21.02.2007, and thereafter the Tribunal extended it further till 05.03.2007. The petitioner joined on 01.03.2007 within the extended period. It was held that once an extension of joining time has been granted by the respondents or by Court order, the joining is to be deemed as within the stipulated time. The legal effect of such condonation of delay cannot be denied for determining seniority.

It was further observed by the Court that the Office Memorandum dated 06.06.1978 issued by DoP&T clarifies that when the joining period is extended, the seniority of the concerned officer should be fixed under the applicable rules without any depression in seniority. It was observed by the court that the order granting extension to the petitioner to join duty was never challenged by the respondents. Therefore, full effect of these orders must be given, including for the purpose of determining the petitioner's seniority. It was held by the court that backdated seniority cannot ordinarily be granted, but here seniority was being counted in terms of the offer of appointment as modified by the orders of the Court and the Tribunal.

Further the Court rejected the contention of the respondents that interim orders cannot create any right. It was observed that interim orders passed during proceedings merge into the final order and do not survive beyond it. Therefore, here the effect of the interim order was to condone the petitioner's delay in joining duty within the time stipulated in the offer of appointment. Once such delay stands condoned, its legal effect must necessarily follow.

It was held by the Court that the petitioner is entitled to seniority as per merit in the selection process with effect from 30.03.2006, the date of the appointment letter, along with consequential notional benefits. The respondents were directed to issue appropriate orders within eight weeks.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Name : Dr. Punita K. Sodhi vs UOI & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.(C) 4218/2008 & CM APPL. 8126/2009

Counsel for the Petitioner : Petitioner-in-person

Counsel for the Respondents : Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC; T. Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Abhijit Chakravarty, Bhanu Gulati, Anum Hussain, Vedant Sood, Sourabh Kumar, Saahila Kaur Lamba, Adv. (Amicus Curiae)