Holding

The respondents willfully failed to implement the Court's directions and are in contempt; they must rectify the seniority list and issue correct orders within one week.

Summary

The Supreme Court revisited a contempt petition filed by A.N. Sehgal and others against Raje Ram Sheoran and others for failing to implement the Court's 1992 directions on seniority allocation between direct recruits and promotees under the Haryana Service Engineers (Class‑I) PWD Rules, 1960. The earlier judgment mandated a 50:50 quota for promotees and direct recruits and required seniority to be back‑dated to the year of initial appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer. The respondents delayed the preparation of the seniority list, gave illegal fitments favoring promotees, and ignored the specific time‑frame ordered by the Court. The Court held that such deliberate non‑compliance amounted to contempt and demonstrated a lack of sincerity. Consequently, the Court ordered the respondents to rectify the illegality and issue correct appointment orders within one week, and disposed of the contempt petition.

Issues considered

Did the respondents comply with the Supreme Court's 1992 directions regarding seniority and quota for promotees versus direct recruits?
Does the respondents' delay and incorrect fitment constitute contempt of court?
How should Rules 12(3), 12(5), 5(2), 12(6) and related provisions be interpreted for seniority determination?

Legislation cited

Haryana Service Engineers (Class‑I) PWD (Roads and Buildings Branch) Rules, 1960s. Rule 12(3), s. Rule 12(5), s. Rule 12(6), s. Rule 3(2), s. Rule 5(2)

Subjects

contempt of courtseniorityservice rulespromoteedirect recruitquotaHaryana Service Engineersimplementation of court ordersadministrative law

Judgment

A A.N. SEHGAL AND ORS.
v.
RAJE RAM SHEORAN AND ORS.

MARCH 31, 1995

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

Contempt
.....
Fixation of seniority-Directions given by Supreme Court-lnter se
C fttment of direct recruits and promotees done in violation of directions
given-Held there was no sincerity on part of authorities to implement the
directions-Held implementation was designed to favour promotees-Direc-
tions given for rectification of illegality.

This Court inA.N. Sehgal & Ors. v.Raje Ram Sheoran & Ors., (1992]
D Supp. 1 SCC 304 interpreted the Haryana Service Engineers Class-I
P.W.D. (Roads and Buildings Branch) Rules, 1960 and gave directions
regarding reckoning of seniority between direct recruits and promotees
that: (i) the promotees from Class II service shall not exceed SO per cent
of the posts in the service and the remaining SO per cent shall be kept open
only to the Assistant Executive Engineers who were directly recruited but
E
later were found eligible and fit for promotion as Executive Engineers; and
(ii) the promotees occupying the post within SO% quota of the direct
recruits acquired no right to the post and should yield place to the direct
recruit, though promoted later to him, to the senior scale posts, i.e.
Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer. The
F respondents were directed to comply with these directions and determine
the cadre strength accordingly. On their failure to do so the present
contempt petition has been filed.

Disposing the petition, this Court

G HELD: Even after the contempt proceedings, while notice was issued,
though time was repeatedly taken, the respondent have done the exercise at
a snail's pace. These facts clearly show that the respondents have
deliberately delayed in finalisation of seniority list to benefit the existing
promotees till they retired from the service. This impression gets fortifica·
H tion from a cursory glance at the mandatory time frame fixed in the
104
--
'

AN. SEHGAL v. RATE RAM SHEORAN 105

judgment, orders passed from time to time and final list prepared by the A
respondents. Even then the fitment itself bas not been done as per the
specific and unambiguous findings recorded and directions given. It is
clear from the fitment made vis-a-vis promotees and direct recruits as is
evident from the seniority list prepared by the respondents. The fitment
given to direct recruits has gone directly in the teeth of the direction given
by this Court. There is no sincerity on the part of the respondents in
B
implementation of Rules as directed by this Court. This conduct is wilful
and the impugned action was designedly done to give a twist to the orders
so as to favour the promotees for whom the respondents already fought for
but lost. The respondents are directed to rectify the illegality within one
week from the date of the order. [107-C, D, G, 108-D, El c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition No.
39/92.

IN
D
Civil Appeal No. 4094 of 1984.

• From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.84 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in C.M. No. 1458/83 in C.W.P. No. 5371 of 1981.

J anendra Lal for the Appellants. E

Madhava Reddy, Mahabir Singh and S.C. Patel for the Respondents.

Gopal Subramaniam, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Indu Malhotra for the State
intetvenor-in-person.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This Court in A.N. Sehgal & Ors. v. Raje Ram Sheoran & Others,
[1992] Supp 1 SCC 304, while interpreting the Haryana Service of En-
gineers, Class I, PWD (Roads and Buildings Branch) Rules, 1960, held G
that:-

"On a conjoint reading of Rules 12(3) and 12(5) it is clear that the
year of allotment of the Assistant Executive Engineer in the post
of Executive Engineer, shall be the calendar year in which the
order of appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer had been H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995]3 S.C.R.

A made. Thus his seniority as Executive Engineer, by fiction of law,
would relate back to his date of initial appointment as Assistant
Executive Engineer and in juxtaposition to Class II officers'
seniority as Executive Engineer is unalterable. The date of the
seniority of Mr. R.R. Sheoran thus shall be August 30, 1971. His
seniority as Executive Engineer shall accordingly be reckoned."
B
While Mr. R.S. Sheoran's seniority as Executive Engineer has deter-
mined as above, with effect from August 30, 1971, as regards the
promotees, this Court held that:-

"A reading thereof clearly manifests the legislative animation,
c namely, that the promotees from Class II service shall not exceed
50 per cent of the posts in the service. The word 'shall' indicates
that it is mandatory that the remaining 50 per cent shall be kept
open only to the Assistant Execut:ve Engineers who were directly
recruited but later were found eligible and fit for promotion as
D Executive Engineers. 11

In para 21 of the judgment, as to what a combined reading of Rule
5(2) read with Rule 12(6) and the operation of Sub-rule (3) to (5) of Rule
12 would bring about was made clear, namely, "the direct recruit is a
E member of the service of Executive Engineer from the date of year of
allotment as an Assistant Executive Engineer. The result was that the
promotee occupying the post within 50% quota of the direct recruits
acquired no right to the post and should yield place to the direct recruit,
though promoted later to him, to the senior scale posts, i.e. Executive
Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer."
F
It was also held that:

"A direct recruit on promotion with his quota, though later to the
promotee is interposed in between the periods and interjects the
promotee's seniority; snaps the links in the chain of continuity and
G steals a march over the approved promotee probationer."

"Mere officiating appointment by promotion to a cadre post
outside the quota continuous officiation therein and declaration
of probation would not clothe the promotee with any rigl:t to claim
H seniority over the direct recruits. 11
AN. SEHGAL v. RAJE RAM SHEORAN 107

On that premise, appropriate directions have been given in para- A
graph 26, namely, to determine the cadre strength of the service under Rule
3(2) read with Appendix'A' and to allot the posts in each year of allotment
to the promotees and direct recruits 50:50 as contemplated under Rule 12
read with 5(2) and to issue appointment orders on substantive basis in the
respective posts.
B
This Court on April 5, 1991, while delivering two judgments ordered
that the respondents should comply with the directions within four months
from the date of the receipt of the judgment. Tue contempt application
was filed on 9.1.92. No time for extension was sought for. Even after the
contempt proceedings, while notice was issued, though time was repeatedly C
taken, the respondent have done the exercise at a snail's pace. These facts
clearly impress us that the respondents have deliberately delayed in
finalisation of seniority list to benefit the existing promotees till they retired
from the service. This impression gets fortification from a cursory glance
at the mandatory time frame fixed in the judgment, orders passed from D
time to time and final list prepared by the respondents. Even then the
fitlp.ent itself has not been done as per the· specific and unambigoous
findings recorded and directions contained therein. It is clear from the
fitment made vis-a-vis promotees and direct recruits as is evident from the
seniority list prepared by the respondents. Take for instance, the promo-
tion of direct recruit, M.K. Aggarwal at SI.No. 22 was effected in the year E
1962. Up to January 11, 1962, no direct recruit was available. He was
appointed for the first time on 11.1.62. As stated earlier, he is entitled to
be treated as Executive Engineer with effect from 1962 though he was
promoted after putting up 5 years service i.e. 1967 as 10 posts by then were
available to the direct recruits. This is only fictional since, admittedly, 21 F
-'.
.
posts were occupied by the promotees. As a result of the operation of Rule
12, promotees are entitled to occupy only 10 or 11 posts. Therefore,
notionally he was required to be treated and that he should be deemed to
have been promoted with effect from 11.1.62 as Executive Engineer. In-
stead they have given him the fitment in 1966 as year of allotment. It has
gone directly in the teeth of the direction given by this Court. R.A. Goel, G
although promoted earlier, he should have been found to be available only
.L
later to M.K. Agrawal, since all the promotees enmass occupied places in
excess of their quota, namely, 10 posts.

Similarly, vis-a-vis the petitioner Sheoran in this contempt case and H

)
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A R.K Aggarwal standing at SI. No. 39 would also demonstrate the deliberate
action on the part of the respondents in repeating the same illegal fitment.
It is already seen that Sheorao's seniority was determined with effect from
30.8.71 even as Executive Engineer. Here the reason was that 5 years'
service was relaxed to all promotees aod direct recruits aod 50% quota to
B the direct recruits remained uofilled. But his seniority as Executive En-
gineer is given as October 8, 1973. Equally, while making inter se fitment
of promotees aod direct recruits, year of allotment has been designedly
given to R.K. Agrawal as 1966. He was given fitment With effect from 1.1.72.
But the year of allotment was 1966 in which year the promotees were in
exc~ss of 50% quota aod pushed Sheorao to SI. No. 44. The availability of
C posts within the quota of the promotees was admittedly to be 1.1.72. While
the year of allotment as Executive Engineer was given to Sheorao as 8.10.73
but to Aggarwal, it was given as July 10, 1972 which obviously is illegal and
was quite contrary to the Rules as interpreted by this Court in the
judgment. This action shows that there is no sincerity on the part of the
D respondents in implementation of the Rules as directed by this Court. This
conduct is wilful aod the impugned action was designedly done to give a
twist to the orders so as to favour the promotees for whom !lie respon-
dents already fought for but lost.

Therefore, the respondents are directed to rectify this illegality as
E pointed out earlier and place the rectified order within one week. The
concerned officer should be present on that day to receive appropriate
orders on contempt.

Post the matter on 7.4.95.

T.N.A. Petition disposed of.
>