 In the present case the respondent ( Arbind jee) claimed for compassionate

appointment because his father dies while working as a home guard. As a result he
was recommended for this post by the commandant, Bihar Home Guard, order
dated 20/11/1985 conditional upon physical fitness. Later, the respondent was
denied due to deficient in the physical fitness, when he appeared for the same on
5/12/1985.
 He approached Patna High Court, the Court ordered to appoint him as Adhinayak
Lipik. But he filed appeal in Supreme Court, the Honourable Court confirmed the
HC order with the order that he must be appointed within one month. And finally
he was appointed on 27/02/1996.
 The main issue in this case is that he claimed seniority form 5/12/1985 by
application made on 10.09.2002. It was rejected by the concerned authority on the
ground that he was borne in service on 27/02/1996 on direction of the Apex Court.
 He challenged the decision of appointing authorities in Patna HC, and the court
directed the authority to consider his seniority from 5/12/1985.
 This decision was challenged by the appointing authority before the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court held error in the decision of HC granting retrospective
seniority on following grounds-
 That he was not appointed as a result of order dated 20/11/1985 because he
was refused due to physical requirements.
 The SC in its previous order did not ordered him to allow retrospective benefit
while appointing him. Under service law retrospective seniority cannot be
claimed from a date when he is not even born in service.
 This Court in case of Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P, has held that the “late
comers to the regular stream cannot steal a march over the early arrivals in the
regular queue. Seniority among the members of same grade is counted from the
date initial entry into the grade. ”
 He was not appointed through a common competitive process and benefit was
not claimed by him within 1 year from the date of appointment.