#seniority calculation

Promotees in Uttarakhand can treat ad hoc promotions under Rule 24(4) as seniority-bearing, provided the promotion fits the vacancy quota. The Supreme Court also clarified that the Public Service Commission’s consultation requirement is merely directory, not fatal. This ruling expands seniority rights for civil servants appointed on a temporary basis.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that contractual service as a Panchayat Karmi must be counted for seniority and all monetary benefits, reinforcing the principle of equal pay for equal work established in Ajay Sharma v. State of MP. This decision impacts thousands of contractual workers across rural local bodies who were previously denied benefits based on their employment status.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that seniority for ministerial staff must be calculated from the date of substantive appointment, not the date of transfer, even when relocation is requested for family reasons. This decision invalidates seniority lists based on transfer dates and entitles affected employees to all consequential benefits, including promotions and pay scales retroactively.

The J&K High Court has ruled that excluding suspension periods from seniority calculations, while crediting them for increments and pension, amounts to double punishment and breaches the principle of service continuity. This impacts all government and public sector employees facing disciplinary suspension, ensuring promotions are based on actual service tenure, not punitive exclusion.

MP High Court rules that services rendered as Shikshakarmi must be included in seniority calculations upon absorption into Adhyapak Samvarg under the 2008 Rules, overriding prior circulars. The judgment reinforces statutory integration principles for public employment, ensuring continuity of service benefits for affected teachers.