Service Law : Court Grants Clarity on Legal Issues Surrounding the Date of Appointment

Service Law : Court Grants Clarity on Legal Issues Surrounding the  Date of Appointment

In a recent decision the issue around date of appointment was clarified and answered. Employee has been successful in getting the Orders of authorities set aside. 

Facts & Controversy

The grievance raised in this case was for treating the appointment of the petitioner as Rifleman (GD) in the Assam Rifles from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. 23.05.2001, instead of the subsequent date of appointment, i.e. 26.05.2015, which was made pursuant to the directions of Court.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Assam Rifles on 23.05.2001 as Rifleman (GD) after qualifying in the recruitment test and was sent for training at Assam Rifles Training Centre and School, Dimapur, Nagaland. During the course of training, the petitioner was subjected to medical examination by the authorities and was found medically unfit, consequent to which he was discharged from service w.e.f. 31.10.2001 vide discharge certificate dated 09.10.2001.

Later on, fresh Appeal/Review Medical Board to find out as to whether the petitioners were medically fit for appointment as Rifleman (GD). Pursuant thereto, a medical re-examination was conducted and the petitioner was found fit. However, his case was rejected on the ground of overage. Thereafter, the petitioner has challenged the rejection on the ground of overage before Court in a separate case, which was allowed and directed the authorities to call the petitioner within a period of 1 (one) month for undergoing basic training by holding that the question of overage will not come into play in the factual matrix of the case. In compliance thereof, the authorities issued a provisional appointment letter dated 26.05.2015, directing the petitioner to report to the Assam Rifles Training Centre and School, Dimapur, Nagaland.

Subsequently, by an order dated 13.01.2021, sanction was extended for coverage under Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 in respect of 1064 personnel. However, in the said order, the name of the petitioner was excluded by showing the date of appointment of the petitioner as 26.05.2015 and thereby placed him under National Pension System (NPS). Hence, petitioner filed writ petition praying for treating the date of his appointment from the initial date of appointment on 23.05.2001 and not the subsequent date of appointment on 26.05.2015.

Arguments of Employee

Employee argued that he was re-appointed provisionally w.e.f. 26.05.2015 pursuant to the directions of Court. He submits that since the petitioner was discharged and thereafter on the intervention of this Court was appointed on certain conditions provisionally w.e.f. 26.05.2015, the petitioner could not claim for treating his initial appointment in the year 2001. 

Findings and Reasons

The petitioner appeared to have accepted the appointment order dated 26.05.2015 which clearly indicates that the appointment is pursuant to the order of Court without any demur. Thereafter, having been found that the name of the petitioner is excluded from the list for entitlement under the Old Pension Scheme by showing the date of appointment as 26.05.2015, the petitioner has again approached Court by filing the petition in the year 2022. The order in respect of said listing was for 1064 personnel excluding the petitioner. 

Authorities argued that ordinarily, once the appointment order is accepted, the appointee would not be permitted to challenge the same after lapse of many years. However, since the similarly situated persons having been approached Court with a similar grievance as projected by the petitioner in the present proceedings, Court was of the considered view that since Court has already granted a relief in the similarly circumstanced matter, the petitioner would be entitled to be provided with the similar relief.

It was held that the claim of the petitioners in that case to treat their appointment from the year 2001 appears to be justified as the break in service of the petitioners is not attributable to any fault on the part of the petitioners. Having considered that the similarly situated persons have been granted relief in a similarly circumstanced matter, Court has no other option but to allow writ petition.

Accordingly, the grievance of the petitioner was allowed thereby directing the authorities to treat the appointment of the petitioner as Rifleman (GD) in the Assam Rifles from his initial date of appointment, i.e. 23.05.2001, and not from the subsequent appointment order dated 26.05.2015.

For further details refer Birender Singh v. Union of India [2025] GCtR 1686 (Gauhati).