On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of an employee seeking cadre reallocation, holding that administrative delay cannot defeat an employee’s original service rights.
The case arose after the Appellant, who cleared the 1995 examination and opted for the ‘hill cadre’, was initially denied appointment on a technical ground but later appointed after litigation. Despite repeated representations, his request for allocation to Uttarakhand was rejected by the State and the High Court.
The Appellant argued that his original option, domicile, and his son’s cognitive disability entitled him to cadre allocation under policy exceptions. The State, however, contended that once allotted to Uttar Pradesh, no change was permissible.
The Supreme Court rejected this view and clarified that “A transfer refers to a change in the place of posting… A change in cadre… alters the very framework within which the employee’s service is regulated.”
It held that cadre allocation must consider option, domicile, and applicable exceptions, and found that the appellant’s case squarely fit these criteria. The Court also strongly criticised the delay, observing that “This is in no way… anything other than apathy on part of the State.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and directed immediate reallocation of the appellant to Uttarakhand with protection of seniority and benefits. It also imposed Rs.1 lakh costs on the State for prolonged delay.
Case Title: Rajendra Singh Bora v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 29304 of 2018
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Mr. Sanjay Karol & JusticeMr. N. Kotiswar Singh
Advocate for the Appellant: AOR Ravindra S. Garia, Adv. Shashank Singh.
Advocate for the Respondent: ASG K. M. Nataraj, Adv. Praveena Gautam, Adv. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Ishaan Sharma, AOR S. N. Terdal, AOR Vanshaja Shukla, Adv. Siddhant Yadav, Adv. Vikas Negi.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
