Holding

The Supreme Court held that the earlier decision in Civil Appeal No. 441/81 was overruled, leaving no legal basis for the DG’s antedated‑seniority order, and therefore upheld the CAT’s decision setting aside that order.

Summary

The case concerned the promotion and seniority of Class III personnel in the Indian Ordnance Factories. A 1962 circular had granted accelerated promotion to diploma‑holding supervisors, but a 1966 circular withdrew that benefit. After decades of litigation, the Supreme Court in Virendra Kumar (Civil Appeal No. 441/81) had ordered that certain appellants be promoted with antedated seniority. The Union later challenged that order; the Director‑General issued an order on 20‑25 February 1987 giving the appellants antedated seniority, which made them senior to other employees who were not parties to the earlier suits. Those affected employees (respondents) approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the DG’s order. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the earlier decision in Virendra Kumar had been overruled by the Parur Ramkrishna case, so the basis for the DG’s order no longer existed, and that relief could not be extended to persons not before the court. Consequently, the Tribunal’s judgment was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

The validity of the Director‑General’s order granting antedated seniority to the appellants in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Parur Ramkrishna’s case overturning Virendra Kumar’s judgment.
Whether relief granted in earlier judgments can be extended to affect the seniority of persons who were not parties to those proceedings.
The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal to set aside the DG’s order.
The interpretation of the Indian Ordnance Factories (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Class III Personnel) Rules, 1956, especially Rules 3(1), 8 and 12, in relation to the two circulars of 1962 and 1966.

Subjects

promotionseniorityantedated seniorityIndian Ordnance FactoriesClass III personnelcircularsadministrative lawCentral Administrative Tribunalservice lawinterpretation of rules

Judgment

'I

A K.K.M. NAIR AND ORS.
v.
"'
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MARCH 31, 1993

B [KULDIP SINGH, N.M. KASLIWAL AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.]

c
Civil Services:

Indian Ordnance Factories (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Class Ill Personnel) Rules, 1956:
-
Rules 3( I), 8 and 12-Seniority-Promotional cadre-Circular giving
benefit of accelerated chances of promotion-Later withdrawn by subsequell(
circulai-Benefits of first circular restored by High Coun--Consequential
orders giving antedated seniority and promotions-Persons adversely affected
D but were not ponies to the earlier litigation approaching Tribunal-Tribunal
setting aside the order-Validity of

The Director-General, Ordnance Factories (D.G.) issued a Circular
dated 6.11.1962 to the effect that the Diploma holders who have been

E
appointed· as Supervisor Grade 'B' (tenchnical) or in equivalent grades,
should on completion of one year's satsifactory service be promoted the
>-
post of Supervisor Grade' A' (Tech.) and the Diploma holders who worked
satisfactorily as Supervisor 'A' (Tech.) or in equivalent grddes for 2 years
should be promoted as Chargemau. Subsequently the D.G. issued another -,....
Circular dated 20.1.1966 according to which promotio~s were to be in
F accordance with normal rules .i.e. on the basis of their listing by the
relevant Departmental Promotion Committee and not merely on satisfac·
tory completition of 2 years contfnuous service as Supervisor 'A' Grade or
equivalent grades. In effect, the first Circular Wds withdrawn by the
second Circular.
G In 1973 some Supervisors Grade 'A' filed a Writ Petition before the
High Court claiming benefit of the first circular. Without going into the
·~
merits of the controvery, a Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the
Writ Petition on the ground of delay. On appeal, a Division Bench of the
High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on merits. On further appeal this
H. Court directed that the cases of those appellants be considered for promo-
906
r K.K.M. NAIR v. U.0.l. 907

tion as Chargeman Gr.II and they promoted them, unless they were found A'
unlit, from the dates on which they ought to have been promoted.
(Virendra Kumar & Ors. v. U.O.l., C.A. No. 441/1981 decided on 2.2.81).
Thereafter the present _appellants filed Writ Petitions before the High
Court praying for the same relief as W-ds granted by this Court in Virendra
Kumar's case. The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions. The Special
B
Leave Petitions filed by the Union of India against the Judgment came to

-
be dismissed. Consequently the D.G. issued an order giving antedated
seniority to the ~ppellants for the purposes of promotion. The appellants
were also given deemed dates of promotion to post of cbargeman Gr.II
from the dates when· they completed two years of service as Supervisor Gr.
'A' and consequent seniority in the other higher grades. This resulted in c
-+ some employees who were senior to the appellants in the cadre of Char·
geman Gr.II and other higher grades becoming junior to the appellants.
These employees who were ·adversely affected by the order of the D.G.
giving ante-dated seniority to the appellants and were not impleaded as
parties at any stage of the litigation, challenged the DG's order before the·
D
Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application
and set aside the DG's order giving ante-dated seniority to the appellants.

Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Tribunal, the appellants preferred
~ the present appeal.
E)
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

- HELD: I. Tliis Court has authoritatively laid down in Pa/urn's case
that Civil Appeal No. 441/81 Virendra Kumar v. U.0.1., was not correctly
decided. The appellants have throughout been basing their claim on
-«, Virendra Kumar's case. Once the base is knocked out by the judgment of F
this Court in Pa/urn's case the appellants are left with no ground to
sustain the order dated February 20/25, 1987 issued by the D.G. by which
they were given ante-dated seniority. [917 B·C)

I .2. Even if it is assumed that the High Court judgment had become
final with the dismissal of the SLP against it, and could not have been G
}-- reviewed by the High Court or the Tribunal, it became final only between
the parties inter-se. The first circular was issued in the year 1962. The
appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court twenty years thereafter
seeking enforcement of the first circular. The petitioners wanted the clock
to be put back by two decades through the process of the Court. All those H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R. '(

A persons who were promoted in accordance with the rules during that long
period and were not parties before the High Court could not be made lo
suffer for no rault or theirs. On the other hand some employees challenged
the order dated February 20/25, 1987 which affected them adversely within
the period or limitation before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In
any case the judgment of this Court in Virendra Kumar having been
B over-ruled in Pa/urn's case, the appellants have neither the law nor the

-
equity on their side. The judgment of the Tribunal being in conformity
with the law laid down by this r.11urt in Pa/um 's case there is no ground to
interfere with the same. [918 A-DI

C Pa/urn Ramkrislmaiail & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Anr., [1989] 2
SCR 92, followed. -f-
Virendra Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal Nil.
441/81 decided on 2.2.1981, rererred to.

0 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1690 of 1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.1991 of the Central Ad·
ministrative Tribunal Jabalpur in O.A. No. 217 of 1987.

M.K. Ramamurthi and V.J. Francis for the Appellants.
E
Narayan B. Shetye, K. Lahiri, Vineet Kumar, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms.
Kitty Kumar Mangalam, S.N. Terdo and B.K. Prasad for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
-
F KULDIP SINGH, J.

Special leave granted.

This appeal is a sequel to the chequered litigation, over a period of
two decades, between members of the Indian Ordnance Factories Class Ill
G Service (the Service). The first round of litigation was concluded in favour
of K.K.M. Nair and others, the appellants, on July 28, 1986 when the spe,ial
leave petitions filed by the Union of India, against the judgment of Madhya
Pradesh High Court, were dismissed by this court. As a consequence the
Director General Ordnance Factories (DG) issued an order dated
H February 20/25, 1987 granting benefits to the appellants towards seniority
K.K.M. NAIR v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 909

in different grades of the Service. S.K. Chattopadhyay and others, the A
respondents, who were not parties to the earlier litigation, challenged the
order dated February 2il/25, 1987 before the Central Administrative
Tribunal. The Tribunal by its judgment dated February 14,1991 allowed the
application of S.K. Chattopadhyay and others and set aside the order dated
February "lfJ/25, 1987. This appeal by K.K.M. Nair and others is against the B
judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur.

- The recruitment and seniority of the members of the Service are
governed by the statutory rules called 'Indian Ordnance Factories (Recruit-
ment and Conditions of Service of Class III Personnel) Rules, 1956" (the
rules). Rules 3(1), 8 and 12 of the rules which are relevant are reproduced C
hereunder:

"3(1). The Class III personnel service in the Indian
Ordnance Factories to which these rules shall apply con-
sists of the posts of the following grades, namely:
D
Foreman (including Foreman/Design).

Storeholder

Assistant Foreman
E
Assistant Storeholder

- Chargeman, Grade I (including Chargeman, Grade
I/Design)

Chargeman, Grade II F

Supervisor, Grade 'A'

Supervisor, Grade 'B'.

8(1) Appointments by promotion shall be made by the
G
Director-General on the basis of selection lists prepared
for the different grades by the duly co.;stituted Depart-
mental Promotion Committees .

. (2) Such Selection lists shall be prepared:- H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R -
A (a) In respect of appointment to the grade of Foreman,
Storeholder, Assistant Foreman, Assistant Storeholder by
the Departmental Promotion ·committee II consisting of
the Director-General and two officers of the. Directorate
General, Ordnance Factories nominated by the Director-
General;
B
(b) In respect of appointments to the grade ofChargeman,
Grade I, and Chargeman, Grade II, by the Departmental
Promotion Committee III (Central) consisting of the
Deputy Director-General, Ordnance Factories and two
-
officers of the Directorate-General, Ordnance Factories
nominated by the Director-General after perusal of the
recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Com-
mittee lII (Factories) which shall be set up in each Factory
and shall consist of the Superintendent of the Factory and
two other gazetted officers of the Factory nominated by
D the Director-General; and

(c) In respect of appointments to the grades of Supervisor
'A' and 'B' Grades by the Departmental Promotion Com-
mittee III (Factories) consisting of the Superintendent of
E the Factory and two other gazetted officers of the Factory
nominated by the Director-General.

F
(3). The Departmental Promotion Committee shall meet
periodically at least once a year and as more often as may
be necessary and shall prepare for each grade and
-
category in order of merit a list of names of persons
considered at for promotion.

(4) A vacancy to be filled by promotion shall be filled by
persons on the approved list strictly in the order in which
names arc arranged in that list provided that:-
G
(i) appointments to the grade of Supervisors, Grade 'A'
shall normally be confined to employees in the particular
Factory in which the Vacancy has arisen; and

H (ii) in respect of appointment to other posts the next
K.K.M. NAIR v. U.0.1. (KULDIP SINGH, J.j 911
r person on the list working in the Factory in which the A
vacancy has arisen. may be appointed out of turn if the
vacancy is not likely to last for more than nine months.

12. No appointment to the posts to which these rules apply
~· shall be made otherwise than as specified in these rules".
B
• Appellants 1, 6, 11 and 12 were appointed Supervisor Grade 'B'
during the years 1%1/62. The remaining appellants were appointed Super-

- visor Grade 'A' during the period 1964/65. Appellants 1 to 11 were
promoted as Chargeman, Grade II on different dates during 1972n7. They
were promoted to Chargeman Grade I during the years 1979/80. They were
c
further promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman during the period 1981
to 1984. S.K. Chattopadhyay and others are respondents 4 to 9 in this
appeal. Respondents 4 and 5 joined as Chargeman Grade II in the year
1966, respondent 9 in the year 1967, respondent 6 in the year 1971 and
respondents 7 and 8 in the year 1974. They. were promoted to Chargeman
Grade I during the years 197811979. Respondents 4 to 9 were further D
promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman during the period from 1980
to 1984. It is not disputed that the recruitment and promotions of the
appellants and respondents were made in accordance with the rules.

-{ It is necessary to lay down the factual matrix which led to the passing
of the order dated February 20/25, 1987 by the DG. E

- The DG issued circular dated November 6, 1962 (first circular) which
is reproduced hereunder:

"D.G.O.F. has decided that Diploma holders serving as
F
Supervisor 'A' (Tech)/Supervisor 'B'l(Tech) and in
-x equivalent grades should be treated as follows:

(i) All those Diploma holders who have been appointed
as Supervisor 'B' (Tech) (and in equivalent grades) should
on completion of one year's satisfactory service in ordn-
G
ance factories be promoted to Supervisor 'A' (Tech) and
in equivalent grades.)

(ii) All those Diploma holders who work satisfactorily as
Supervisor 'A' (Tech) or in equivalent grades for 2 years
in Ordnance Factory should be promoted to Chargeman." H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R.

A Subsequently the D.G. issued circular dated January 20, 1966
(second circular). The operative part of the second circular is as under:

''The question of promotion of Diploma holders in
Mech/Elec. Engineering and Ex-apprentices serving as ·~
Supr. 'A' Gr. or in equivalent grades has received further
B
consideration of the D.G.O.F. who has decided that in
future promotions of all such individuals will be effected
in accordance with the normal rules i.e. on the basis of
their listing by the relevant D.P.C. and not merely on -
completion of 2 years satisfactory continuous service as
c Super. A Gr. or equivalent grades.'

It is, thus, obvious that after the issue of second circular no Super-
visor Grade 'A' could claim to have become eligible fOr promotion merely
on completion of two years satisfactory service and his promotion there-
D after could be effected only in accordance with the rules. In a nut-shell the
first circular was withdravm by the second circular.

Seventy Five supervisors Grade 'A' (other than the appellants and
the respondents before us) filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High

E
Court in the year 1972 claiming benefit of the first circular. Their grievance '!-
was that they were not being promoted to the post of Chargeman Grade
II on completion of two years satisfactory service even though large number
of Supervisors Grade 'A' had already been promoted in terms of the first
circular. The writ petition was contested by the Union of India, inter a/ia,
on the ground that under rule 8 of the rules promotion from Supervisor
-
F Grade 'A' to Chargeman Grade II was to be made on the basis of selection.
In the first instance the selection was to be made by the Departmental ~
Promotion Committee at the Factory level and thereafter by the
Departmental Committee at the central level. The promotions were to be
made by the DG on the basis of the select list prepared as a result of the
selections made by the two committees. It was further asserted that' all the
G writ petitioners were considered for promotion in accordance with the
rules but they were not found fit for promotion. The learned Single Judge
of the Allahabad High Court, however, did not go into the merits of the
controversy and dismissed ihe writ petition on the ground of delay. Against
the judgment of the learne\I Single Judge appeal was preferred before a
H Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench went into the merits
r K.K.M. NAIR v. U.0.1. [KULD!P SINGH, J.] 913

of the controversy and came to the conclusion that promotion from Super- A
visor Grade 'A' to Chargeman Grade II could only be made in accordance
with the procedure laid down under the rules. The learned Judges further
took the view that the first circular was to be interpreted in conformity with
the rules. It was further held that even if it was to be assumed that the DG
promoted some Supervisors Grade 'A' to the post of Chargeman Grade II
immediately on the complt;tion of two years service, without following rule
B
8 of the rules, no right would accrue in favour of the writ petitioners
inasmuch as such promotions would be contrary to the rules and would
confer no legal right on the writ petitioners for likewise promotion in
breach of the rules. The argument based on Article 16 was also rejected.
The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, thus, dismissed the writ c
k petition on merits. Against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court Civil
Appeal No. 441 of 1981 was preferred in this Court. Sinch the order dated
February 2, 1981 passed in Virendra Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India and
Ors. Civil Appeal No. 441/81 is the backbone of the appellants claim we
reproduce the said order hereunder:
D
"Heard counsel. Special leave granted.

Our attention has been invited by learned counsel for
-{ both the sides to the relevant rules which govern promo-
tion to the post of Chargeman Grade II. It appears that E

-
a large number of persons have been promoted to those
posts though they have completed only two years of ser-
vice. The Government now appears to insist that in so far
as the appellants are concerned they cannot be considered
for promotion unless they complete three years of service. F
We see no justification for any such differential treatment
being given to the appellants. If a large number of other
persons similarly situated have been promoted as Char-
geman Grade II after completing two years of service,
there is no reason why the appellants should also not be
similarly promoted after completing the same period of G
~- service. We are not suggesting that the appellants are
entitled to be promoted to the aforesaid posts even if they
are found unfit to be promoted.

We therefore direct that the concerned authorities will H
"':

914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R.

A consider the cases of the appellants for promotion as
Chargeman Grade II and promote them to the said posts
unless they are found to be unfit. If the appellants are
promoted, they will naturally have to be promoted with
effect from the date on which they ought to have been
promoted.
B
This order will dispose of the appeal.

There will be no order as to costs."

Thereafter K.K.M. Nair and 124 others, the appellants, filed six writ
C petitions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court during the period 1981-
82. It was contended before the High Court that the reasons which weighed
with this Court in allowing Civil Appeal No. 441/81 applied to the six writ
petitions also and it was prayed that the same relief be granted to the
petitioners. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, relying upon the judgment
D of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 441/81, allowed the writ petitions by its
judgment dated April 4, 1983. Against the aforesaid judgment of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court special leave petitions (Civil)"Nos. 5987-92/86
were filed in this Court by the Union of India and were dismissed on July
28, 1986. Pursuant to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
dated April 4, 1983 the DG issued the order dated February 20/25, 1987
E

-
giving ante-dated seniority to the appellants for the purposes of promotion
to the next higher grades. The appellants were, thus, given deemtd dates
of promotion to the post of Chargeman, Grade II from the date when they
completed two years of service as Grade A and consequent seniority in the
other higher grades. S.K. Chattopadhyay and others who were senior to the
F appellants in the cadre of Chargeman, Grade II and other higher grades
in the service were made junior to the appellants as a consequcn~e of the
order dated February 20/25, 1987.

At this stage we may notice the judgment of this Court in Pa/un.
G Ramkrishnaialt & Others ere. v. Union of India & Anr., [1989] 2 SCR 9;
delivered by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court dismissing a bunch ol
nineteen writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. ' The
petitioners in the afore-mentioned writ petitions claimed to have been
appointed as Supervisors, Grade 'A' in various ordnance factories between
1962 to 1966 and had filed_ the writ petitions with the prayer that the same
H relief be granted to them as was given by this Court to seventy five
K.K.M. NAIR v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 915
r supervisors, "Grade A in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981. This Court in A
Pa/urn's case considered the rules, the first circular, the second circular
and the order of this court in Civil Appeal No. 441/81 dated February 2,
1981. Dismissing the writ petitions this Court held as under:-

~ 1. The executive instruction could make a provision only with regard
to a matter which was not covered by the rules and such executive instruc- B
' tion could not over-ride any provisions of the rules.

- 2. Notwithstanding the issue of the instructions dated November 6,
1962 the procedure for making promotion as laid down in rule 8 of the
Rules had to be followed, and the said procedure could not be abrogated c
by the executive instructions dated November 6, 1962.
k 3. The only effect of the circular dated November 6, 1962 was that
Supervisors Grade 'A' on completion of two years satisfactory service could
be promoted by following the procedure contemplated by rule 8 of the
Rules. This circular had indeed the effect of accelerating the chance of D
promotion. The right to promotion on the other hand, was to be governed
by the rules. This right of promotion as provided by the rules was neither
affected nor could be affected by the circular.

--{ 4. After coming into force of the circular dated January 20, 1966
E
promotions could not be made just on completion of two years satisfactory
service under the earlier circular dated November 6, 1962, the same having

- been superseded by the latter circular.

5. Supervisor, Grade A who had been promoted before the coming
into force of the circular dated January 20, 1966 stood in a class separate F
)( from those whose promotions were to be made thereafter. The fact that
some Supervisors, Grade A had been promoted before the coming into
force of the circular dated January 20, .1966 could not, therefore, constitute
the basis for an argument that those Supervisors Grade A whose cases
came up for consideration thereafter and who were promoted in due
course in accordance \vith the rules were discriminated against.
G
_},
6. There are sufficient indications that when Civil Appeal No. 441/81
was heard by this Court the circular dated January 20, 1966 and the legal
consequences flowing therefrom were .not brought to the notice of this
Court by the learned counsel for the respondents or the same were not H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R.

A . properly emphasised.

It is thus obvious that the Three-Judge Bench of this Court in
Pa/urn's case did not approve the order dated February 2, 1981 of Two-
Judge Bench in Civil Appeal No. 441/81.

B

-
Since the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 441/81 had
become final inter-partes, ii had to be implemented. While considering the
extent of the relief to be given to the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 441J81
this Court in Pa/urn's case observed as under:-

"As already noticed earlier certain writ petilions filed in
-
c Madhya Pradesh High Court were allowed by that Court
were allowed by that Court on 4th April, 1983 relying on
the judgment of this Court dated 2nd February, 1981 in
Civil Appeal No. 441/81. Against the aforesaid judgment
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 4th April, 1983
D Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 5987-92 of 1986 were
filed in this Court by the Union of India and were dis-
missed on 28th July, 1986. The findings of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in its judgment dated 4th April, 1983
thus stand approved by this Court. In this view of the
matter to put ·them at par it would be appropriate that the
appellants in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 may also be
granted the same relief which was granted to the
petitioners in the writ petitions before the Madhya
Pradesh High Court."
-
F The appellants have raised an argument based on the above quoted obser-
vations of this Court in Pa/urn's case which we shall consider at a later
stage in this judgment.

We may come back to the point of time when the Director General
G issued the order dated February 20/25, 1987 giving ante-dated seniority to
the appellants in various grades of the service. As mentioned above S.K.
Chattopadhyay and others were not impleaded as parties at any stage of
the litigation earlier to the issue of the said orders. They were· adversely
affected in the matter of seniority for the first time by the order dated
February 20/25, 1987. S.K. Chattopadhyay and others challenged the said
H order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench. The
K.K.M. NAIR v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 917

Tribunal by its judgment dated February 14, 1991 allowed the application A
of S.K. Chattopadhyay and others and set aside the order dated February
20/25, 1987 giving ante-dated seniority to the appellants.

We agree with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal though we
'r do not appreciate the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in. reaching the
B
said conclusions. This Court has authoritatively laid down in Paluru 's case
that Civil Appeal No. 441/81 was not correctly decided by this Court. The
appellants have through-out been basing their claim on the order dated
- February 2, 1981 in Civil Appeal No. 441/81. Once the base is knocked out
by the judgment of this court in Paluru's case the appellants are left with
no ground to sustain the order dated February 20/25, 1987 by which they c
were given ante-dated seniority. Following the judgment of this Court in
~- Pa/uru's case and the reasoning therein we uphold the impugned judgment
of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur.

Mr. M.K. Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the appellants, has vehe-
D
mently argued that the judgment dated April 4, 1983 by the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in favour of the appellants having been approved by
this Court in Paluru 's case the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to negate the
same. We do not agree with the learned counsel.

~ We have reproduced above the paragraph from the judgment in E
Pa/uru's case wherein this Court has observed, "findings of the Madhya

- Pradesh High Court in its judgment dated 4th April, 1983 thus stand
approved by this Court". It is not disputed that the said "approval" by this
Court was by dismissing the special leave petitions against the judgment of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court. There is no reasoned judgment/order by F
this Court approving the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. It
x is not necessary for us to go into the question whether in a situation like
this any court below could have reversed the judgment by review or
otherwise, because in this case we are faced with different situation. S.K.
Chattopadhyay and others were not parties to the proceedings before the
Madhya Pradesh High Court which ended by the dismissal of the special G
leave petitions by this Court on July 28, 1986. Till that date no. action
adverse to them had· been taken by the DG or any other authority. It was
incumbent on the appellants t<i have impleaded all the persons who were
likely to be adversely affected in the event of appellants success in the writ
petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Under the circumstances H
t
1 r
[
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R. (
A even if it is assumed that the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment had
'become final and could not have been reviewed by the High Court or the
Tribunal, it became final only between the parties inter-se. The first circular
was issued in the year 1962. The appellants filed writ petitions in the
r
Madhya Pradesh High Court twenty years thereafter seeking enforcement -<(
of the first circular. The petitioners wanted the clock to be put back by two
B decades through the process of the Court. All those persons who were
promoted in accordance with the rules during that long period and were
not parties before the Madhya Pradesh High Court cannot be made to
t
suffer for no fault of theirs. On the other hand, S.K. Chattopadhyay and --r
others challenged the order dated February ?fJ/25, 1987 which affected
c them adversely within the period of limitation before the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal. In any case the judgment of this Court in Civil -~-
Appeal No. 441 of 1981 having been over-ruled by Three·Judge Bench of
this Court in Pa/urn's case, the appellants have neither the law nor the
equity on their side. The judgment of the Tribunal being in coiiformity with
the law laid down by this Court in Pa/urn's case, we see no ground to
D -"'
interfere with the same.

Before parting with this judgment we may mention that because of
contradictory judgments of various courts and Central Administrative
[
Tribunals in the country the seniority position of the members of .the ~-
E service all over the country, numbering about twenty thousand could not ~
be crystallised over a period of two decades. We have been informed by [
the Union of India. that the Central Administrative Tribunals all over the
country have, by and large, taken uniform view following the judgment of
this Court in Pa/urn's case and the seniority lists have been issued in
conformity therewith. It has been a long-drawn-out battle in the court-cor-
- I

F ridors causing lot of expense and suffering to the members of the service.
We hope that this judgment has finally drawn the curtains over the con·
troversy.

The appeal, is therefore, dismissed. No costs.

G.N. Appeal dismissed.
-~