Case Name: Harish Chandra Singh v. S. N. Tripathi
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 879
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 1997
Bench: K. Ramaswamy & B.N. Kirpal, JJ.

Brief Summary:
In Harish Chandra Singh v. S. N. Tripathi, the Supreme Court dealt with service jurisprudence, especially relating to seniority, promotion, and rules governing government employees.

Key Issues:
Whether retrospective seniority can be granted without actual working experience?
Can a person be given the benefit of seniority from a date when he was not even in service?


Mr.Daya Ram engaged Mr. Harish Chandra as a lawyer in a consolidation proceeding pending before the consolidation officer. Since Daya Ram could not attend the case regularly, harish Chandra asked him to appoint a mukhtar. Daya Ram appointed one mr. Syed Hussain, a junior Advocate of harish Chandra as the mukhtar (power agent). Syed Hussain in the capacity as mukhtar sold certain properties of Daya Ram to the father of Harish Chandra (This he did under the pressure of his senior Harish Chandra). Daya Ram filed a complaint against both Harish Chandra and his junior Syed Hussain before the Local Bar Association. The president of the Bar Association forwarded the complaint to the U.P.State Bar Council. Since the matter was not disposed off within one year it was transferred to the Bar Council of India.

During the enquiry Daya Ram submitted the following.
1.The mukhtar was obtained fraudulently.
2.Therefore, the sale deed executed by using the mukhtar should be treated as void.
3.The act of Harish Chandra and Syed Hussain amounts to professional misconduct, So they should be punished for that.
Syed Hussain confessed the guilt stating that being a junior, by obeying his senior, he did these things and asked for pardon.
Harish Chandra contented that his father was living separately and he did not have any contact with him. He also contented that Syed Hussain is not his junior.
The Bar Council of India held that Harish Chandra is Guilty of professional misconduct and he was suspended from the practice for two years. His junior Syed Hussain was pardoned.
Against this order Harish Chandra filed an appeal before the Supreme court. The Supreme court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Bar Council of India.

Judgment Highlights:
1) The Supreme Court ruled that seniority cannot be given retrospectively from a date when an employee was not even borne on the cadre or in service.
2) The court emphasized that seniority must be based on the date of regular appointment, and not on the date of an administrative decision or recommendation.
3) Granting retrospective seniority would violate the rights of those who were already in service and working.