Supreme Court of India
PROMOTEE TELECOM ENGINEERS FORUM & ORS.versusD.S. MATHUR, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 402
- Decided
- 25 March 2008
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The Department’s order contravened the Supreme Court’s clarification; the benefit of that clarification extends to all similarly situated employees, and the petitioners’ seniority must be restored as per the Parmanand Lal principles.
Summary
Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum and 44 other employees (petitioners) had their seniority fixed on the basis of the year they passed the departmental qualifying examination, as directed in the Parmanand Lal case. The Supreme Court later clarified that while recruitment year would generally govern seniority, the seniority already fixed by earlier court orders could not be disturbed. The Department of Telecommunications failed to implement this clarification, issuing a new seniority list that placed the petitioners junior to three officers and limiting the benefit of the Supreme Court order to only those who were parties to the earlier petition. The petitioners filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience. The Court held that the Department’s actions contravened the clarification, that the benefit extends to all similarly situated employees, and that the petitioners were entitled to have their seniority restored as per the Parmanand Lal principles. The contempt petition was allowed and the Department was directed to restore the seniority within eight weeks, with no order as to costs.
Issues considered
- The Department of Telecommunications' order violating the Supreme Court's clarification dated 28 September 2006 amounts to contempt of court.
- Whether the benefit of the Supreme Court's clarification on seniority extends only to parties of the earlier petition or to all employees whose seniority had become final.
- Whether the petitioners must approach the Central Administrative Tribunal via an original application or can enforce the seniority order through a contempt petition.
Legislation cited
Subjects
seniorityservice lawcontempt of courtrecruitment rulestelecommunicationdepartmental examinationclarification orderParmanand Lal caseseniority restoration
Judgment
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 442
A PROMOTEE TELECOM ENGINEERS FORUM & ORS.
V.
D.S. MATHUR, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
(Contempt Petition (C) No. 248 of 2007)
8 MARCH 25, 2008
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
Service Law - Seniority - Restoration of - Principles laid
c down by High Court in Parmanand Lat's case that criteria for
fixation of seniority was qualifying year; attaining finality -
Benefit of seniority to applicants in terms thereof- Subsequent
Order of this Court that criteria for fixation of seniority was
recryitment year - Re-determination of seniority of applicants
to their disadvantage - Application for clarification, allowed
D
by this Court holding that earlier seniority gained on basis of
Court's order not to be disturbed - Non-implementation by 1
Department and a/so refusal to act on the directions issued -
Contempt petition - Held: Order in clarification application
violated - Interpretation by Department that benefit of the
E iudgment would be available only to those employees who
were parties in that particular petition not correct - Rights of
applicants have been crystallized by various orders passed
by tribunal/courts-A/so it cannot be said that applicants should
challenge Department's order disposing of representations by
F way of Original Application before tribunal - Thus, Department
directed to restore the seniority of applicants in terms of
principles laid down in Parmanand Lat's case - Telegraph
Engineering Service Class-// Recruitment Rules, 1986 - Post
and Telegraph Manual, Volume IV - Para 206.
G
In terms of the instructions contained in para 206 of
the Post and Telegraph Manual, Volume IV, those who
passed departmental qualifying examination earlier were
ranked senior as a group to those who passed the
H 442
PROMOTEE TEL. ENG. FORUM & ORS. v. D.S. 443
MATHUR, SEC., DEPTT. OF TEL.
examination subsequently. The present applicant- A
Parmanand Lal of 1966 batch and Brij Mohan of 1965
batch qualified in the examinations held in 1974 but were
placed in the eligibility list below the last man who qualified
the examination in 1975. Aggrieved, applicants filed writ
petition which was allowed by the Allahabad High Court. B
""' The order attained finality. The applicants were given the
benefit of seniority applying the principles laid down in
Parmanand Lat's case and their seniority in the cadre was
fixed on basis of the order in which they passed
departmental examination and were placed above Shri C
Belani, Biradar and Kulkarni. Thereafter, in C.A. No. 4339
of 1995, this Court by order dated 26.4.2000 held that the
statutory Rules-Telegraph Engineering Service Class-II
Recruitment Rules, 1986, alone would govern the
preparation of eligibility lists and the instructions in
0
paragraph 206' of the P & T Manual would be of no
consequence. It issued guidelines whereby criteria for
fixation of seniority was the recruitment year. In terms
thereof, Shri Belani, Biradar and Kulkarni became senior
to applicants in the seniority list and superseded the
applicants. The applicants then filed application for E
clarification IA No. 16 in C.A. No. 4339 of 1995 which was
allowed by this Court by order dated 29.09.2006. However,
the respondent-Department did not implement the said
order. The applicants then sent representations. Th~
Department passed an order dated 20.01.2007 wherein F
the applicants were given changed seniority number but
in effect, they were continued to be shown junior to Shri
Belani, Kulkarni and Biradar who had superseded the
petitioners in the revision of seniority lists in the year 2001.
A reference was made to the contempt petition which was G
disposed' of. The Department was directed to respond to
the representations of the applicants. The Department
passed an office order that the benefit of the order of this
Court would be admissible only to the applicants who
were parties before this Court. The applicants contended H
. 444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 5 S.C.R.
A that such an act amounted to willful disobedience of the
judgment of this Court. It requested the Department to re-
consider the letter wherein it was stated that the
applicant's seniority was liable to be protected as per the
order passed by this Court from time to time. However,
B the Department stated that it had already considered the
same. Hence, the present contempt petition.
Allowing the petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It was specifically held by this Court in its
c order dated 28.9.2006 that such of the employees, whose
claims for the seniority on the basis of the qualifying year
had become final because of the orders of the courts,
should not be disturbed on account of its subsequent
judgment. There can be no doubt and it is also admitted
that all the applicants were senior to Shri Belani, Biradar
0
and Kulkarni on the basis of their having passed the
examination earlier in the year 1974 or so. It is also agreed
that in the seniority-list, based on the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court, the applicants were senior whereas
Shri Belani, Biradar and Kulkarni were juniors because
E they had passed the examination later on, though they
were senior in service to the petitioners. Once this Court,
in its order dated 28.9.2006 had declared that the earlier
seniority gained on the basis of the court's orders was
not to be disturbed, the respondent-Government was
F bound to keep the seniority of the applicants untouched.
It has been argued before this Court that their numbers in ~
the seniority were improved. However, it cannot be
forgotten the fact that Shri Belani, Biradar and Kulkarni
were placed above these applicants. This could not have
G been permitted and it was indeed not permitted by this
Court. The so-called interpretation put forward by the
respondent on the order that the benefit of the judgment
of this Court would be available only to those who were
parties in that particular appeal is wholly incorrect and
H cannot be accepted. Such is not the import at all. The
PROMOTEE TEL. ENG. FORUM & ORS. v. D.S. 445
MATHUR, SEC., DEPTT. OF TEL.
~
observations of this Court in order dated 28.9.2006 are A
extremely clear. [Para 15] [453-H; 454-A, B, C, D & E]
1.2 It is nowhere asserted by the respondent that the
rights of the petitioners were not finally crystallized by
the orders of the Tribunal and/or courts. Indeed that could
not be the position as otherVliise the petitioners could not B
have been put above Shri Belani, Biradar and Kulkarni. It
may be that the seniority of the applicants was restored
and was placed at the same place in the earlier seniority-
list, however, that by itself cannot be a proper
implementation since the seniority of Shri Belani, Biradar c
and Kulkarni was not only improved but they were
rendered senior to all the applicants which was not the
position earlier. Therefore, it is clear that the order of this
Court dated 28.9.2006 has been clearly breached. [Para
16] [454-F, G & H; 455-A] D
1.3 Ordinarily a very strict view would have been taken
of this obvious breach committed. However, considering
that the matter is very old and is also a complicated one,
there can be a scope for misunderstanding of the order
of this Court. Therefore, it is not interfered with. [Para E
17] [455-A & B]
1.4 The submission that since the respondent has
passed the orders disposing of the representations of the
petitioners, the only way left for the petitioners was to
challenge the same by way of an independent Original F
Application before the tribunal cannot be accepted. It is
more than a decade that the petitioners are fighting for
their rights. Their rights had already been crystallized by
various orders passed by the tribunals and the courts
which fact is not denied by the respondent. On the top of G
it, the petitioners were again required to come before this
Court by way of an Interim Application which has resulted
, in denial ofthe fruits of the orders which were passed in
their favour by the tribunals and the courts. Under such
circumstances, to push them again to file Original H
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
A Application challenging the obviously erroneous orders
passed by the respondent disposing of the
representations of the petitioners would be a travesty of
justice. [Para 18] [455-C, D & E]
1.5 It is directed that the respondents would re-
B arrange the seniority in terms of the principles laid down
in Parmanand Lal's case restoring their earlier position
and shall not put any employee over and above the
present petitioners on the basis of the seniority in service
in the entry year, more particularly Shri Belani, Biradar and
C Kulkarni. [Para 19] [455-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition
(C) No.248 of 2007 in I.A. No. 16 in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of
1995.
D L.N. Rao, Dayan Krishnan, Nikhil Nayyar and Sam rat Singh
for the Appellants.
R. Mohan, A.S.G.. Madhurima Tatia, B.K. Prasad, Anis
Prakash and D.S. Mahra for the Respondents.
E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This is a Contempt Petition filed
by Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum and others. They
complain that the Department of Telecommunications has flouted
the judgment and directions dated 28.9.2006. The observations
F on which the petitioners rely are as follows:
'The question then arises as to whether the applicants
can claim the protection of their seniority and consequent
promotion on the basis of observations and the clarification
G contained in the judgment of this Court reported in (2000)
9 SCC 71. Having considered all aspects of the matter,
we are satisfied that those whose cases stand on the
same footing as that of Parmanand Lal cannot now be •
adversely affected by re-determination of their seniority to
their disadvantage relying on the later judgment of this
H
PROMOTEE TEL. ENG. FORUM & ORS. v. D.S. 447
MATHUR, SEC , DEPTT. OF TEL. [SIRPURKAR, J.]
Court in C.A. No. 4339 of 1995 reported in (1997) 10 A
SCC 226 (supra) as affirmed by this Court in its judgment
reported in (2000) 9 sec 71 (supra)."
2. The petitioners rely on the further directions given by
the Court. They are to the following effect:
B
"We, therefore, direct that such of the applicants whose
seniority had been determined by the competent authority,
and who had been given benefit of seniority and promotion
pursuant to the orders passed by Courts or Tribunals
following the principles laid down by the Allahabad High c
Court and approved by this Court, which orders have since
attained finality, cannot be reverted with retrospective
effect. The determination of their seniority and the
consequent promotion having attained finality, the
principles laid down in later judgments will not adversely
D
affect their cases.
This Court has clearly clarified the position in its aforesaid
judgment. The observations made by this Court while
disposing of the appeal of Parmanand Lal are also
pertinent. This Court clearly laid down the principle that E
the seniority fixed on the basis of the directions of this
Court which had attained finality is not liable to be altered
by virtue of a different interpretation being given for fixation
of seniority by different benches of Tribunal. Consequently,
the promotions already effected on the basis of seniority F
determined in accordance with the principles laid down in
"" the judgment of the Allahabad High Court cannot be
altered.
Having regard to the above observations and clarification,
we have no doubt that such of the applicants whose claim G
to seniority and consequent promotion on the basis of the
principles laid down in the Allahabad High Court's
" judgment in Parmanand Lal's case have been upheld or
recognized by Court or Tribunal by judgment and order
which have attained finality will not be adversely affected H
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 5 S.C.R.
~
A by the contrary view now taken in the judgment reported
in 1997(10) SCC 226. Since the rights of such applicants
were determined in a duly constituted proceeding, which
determination has attained finality, a subsequent judgment
of a Court or Tribunal taking a contrary view will not
B adversely affect the applicants in whose cases the orders
have attained finality. We order accordingly.
Before parting with this judgment we may observe that we
have not laid down any principle or law having universal
application. We have only clarified and given effect to an
c earlier judgment of this Court rendered in an extraordinary
situation."
3. The above mentioned observations and directions were
issued at the instance of the Promotee Telecom Engineers
Forum and Ors. (petitioners herein).
D
4. The petitioners contend that all of them (45 in number) y
would be covered by these directions in as much as their claim
to seniority and consequent promotion was finally recognized
by the Tribunal and or the Court earlier and as such that claim
E could not be adversely affected only because of the judgment
reported in 1997(1 O)SCC 226. The aforementioned directions
were passed in I.A. No. 16 in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995
..
which was filed by the present Contempt Petitioners.
5. In their petition, the petitioners have made the reference
F to the rules called Telegraph Engineering Service Class-II
Recruitment Rules, 1966 framed in exercise of powers conferred
by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and to
•
the instructions contained in paragraph 206 of the Post and
Telegraph Manual (P&T Manual), Volume IV. It is then asserted
G that as per these rules, those who had passed the departmental
qualifying examination earlier were ranked senior as a group to
those who passed the examination subsequently. The change
brought in by 1966 Rules was also referred to. A reference is .\
then made to the writ petition filed by one Parmanand Lal of
H 1966 batch and Brij Mohan of 1965 batch who had qualified in
PROMOTEE TEL. ENG. FORUM & ORS. v. D.S. 449
MATHUR, SEC., DEPTT. OF TEL. [SIRPURKAR, J.)
the examinations held in 1974 complaining against their placing A
in the eligibility list below the last man who qualified the
examination in 1975. It is then stated that the High Court of
Allahabad allowed the writ petition granting relief to Parmanand
Lal and Brij Mohan. The Judgment of the Allahabad High Court
was challenged by Special Leave Petition filed by Union of India B
which was dismissed by this Court.
. 6. The petitioners then assert that they had obtained similar
orders from various Benches of the Central Administrative
Tribunal based on the principles laid down by the High Court of
Allahabad and those judgments had attained finality in as much c
as in most cases they were confirmed by this Court and in some
other cases the department did not prefer any appeal against
the order of the Tribunal. The petitioners then assert that they
were given the benefit of seniority applying the principles laid
down in Parmanand La l's case and their seniority in the cadre D
1' was fixed on the basis of the order in which they had passed
departmental examination and as such they were placed above
Mr. M.P. Belani, Mr. B.C. Biradar and Mr. A.V. Kulkarni
respondents herein.
... 7. The petitioners then refer to the judgment delivered by E
this Court on 26.4.2000 in Union of India vs. Madras Telephone
SC & ST Social Welfare Association reported in 2000(9) SCC
71 wherein this Court had taken a view whereby this Court did
not approve of the view of the Allahabad High Court and held
that the statutory rules alone would govern the. preparation of F
eligibility lists and the instructions in paragraph 206 of the P&T
Manual would be of no consequence. The petitioners, however,
assert that this Court was pleased to protect those persons like
the petitioners herein who had already obtained the judgments
in their favour and which judgments had obtained finality. The G
petitioners then assert that in the year 2001 when the seniority
lists were revised, the department protected the seniority of
}
Parmanand Lal by placing him above Shri Biswanath Pradhan
who had passed the examination after Shri Parmanand Lal.
They, however, further complain that the same principle was not H
...
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 5 S.C.R
A applied and all the petitioners were superseded by various
persons including Shri M.R. Belani, Shri B.C. Biradar and Shri
A.V. Kulkarni who had passed the examination after the
petitioners.
8. The petitioners then make a reference to the application
B for clarification being I.A. No. 16 in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of
1995 which was allowed by the Court by its detailed order dated
28.09.2006.
9. It is further complained that the respondent department
c did not make any attempt to implement the said judgment dated
28.09.2006 and therefore the petitioners were constrained to
send representations dated 16.10.2006 and 15.01.2007
explaining to the Department that their seniority was required
to be fixed above Shri M.R. Belani, Shri A.V. Kulkarni and Shri
B.C. Biradar.
D
10. It is then complained that the department passed an
order dated 20th January, 2007 wherein the petitioners were
totally deprived of the seniority to which they were entitled. In
that, they were given changed seniority number but in effect,
E they were continued to be shown junior to Shri M.R. Belani, Shri
A.V. Kulkarni and Shri B.C. Biradar who had superseded the ...
petitioners in the revision of seniority lists in the year 2001.
According to them, it was therefore that the order dated
20.01.2007 was necessitated. In paragraph 14 of the Contempt
F Petition, the petitioners have shown the example of Shri A.S.
Choudhary as to how he was superseded by Shri Belani who
was shown senior to the petitioners. Similarly, the petitioner also
gave an example of Shri Rajender Prasad as well as Shri Anil
Gupta in the similar manner being shown junior to Shri B.C.
Biradar and Shri A.V. Kulkarni respectively.
G
11. A reference was then made to the contempt petition
being contempt petition no. 36 of 2007 which was disposed of
by this Court on 12.03.2007 with a direction that the respondent
department to disclose the reasons for changing the seniority
H lists in the manner in which it has been done and to respond to
PROMOTEE TEL. ENG. FORUM & ORS. v. D.S. 451
MATHUR, SEC., DEPTT. OF TEL. [SIRPURKAR, J.]
-f their representation made by the petitioner. It is then pointed A
out that the Office Order came to be issued dated 30 1h March
2007 by respondent holding that the benefit of the order of this
Court would be admissible only to the applicants who were
parties before this Court. The petitioners, therefore, contended
that the respondents by their interpretation restricted the scope B
of the judgment and directions of the order passed by this Court
nullifying the earlier protection granted by this Court to the
petitioners and that this action is a deliberate, contumacious
and willful disobedience of the judgment of this Court. The
petitioners have made a reference to a letter dated 19.04.2007 c
to the respondent department requesting to re-consider the
above mentioned letter dated 16.04.2007 wherein it was
explained that the petitioners' seniority was liable to be protected
as per the order passed by this Court from time to time and
more particularly in its last order. However, the department by
D
its letter dated 04.06.2007 stated that the issues raised had
already been taken into consideration by it and thereby refusing
to act on the letter dated 19.04.2007. In this view of the matter,
the contemnors contended before us that the department has
committed contempt of court. They also pray for immediate
directions regarding the restoration of their seniority following E
- the principles laid down by Allahabad High Court Judgment in
Parmanand Lal's case as approved by this court that is to
say, in accordance with the year of passing of their departmental
examination.
F
12. The contempt application is opposed on behalf of the
·'+. department and the department has filed the detailed counter.
I 13. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the
l respondent had sought the legal advise and on that basis they
have implemented the order passed in respect of the petitioners G
herein. According to the Department they have re-arranged the
seniority and that is how the petitioners have been put at the
j higher position in the seniority-list. Learned counsel also urged
that this Court by its order dated 12.3.2007 had dismissed the
Contempt Petition with the direction to respond to the H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 5 S.C.R.
A representations dated 16.10.2006 followed by a reminder within
six weeks. This Court had left it open to the petitioners to take
appropriate action in law if they felt aggrieved by the order passed
on those representations. Accordingly, the learned counsel
pointed out that the representations were disposed of and,
B therefore, there was no question of any contempt having been
committed and if petitioners felt aggrieved, they ought to have
challenged the orders passed by the Department disposing of
the representations by way of an Original Application before
the Central Administrative Tribunal as it amounted to a fresh
C cause of action.
14. We were taken through the records of the earlier orders
passed by this Court and it was tried to be justified that the
seniority-lists were correctly prepared and the seniority was also
correctly fixed. However, it was admitted and asserted before
D us that according to the Department S/Shri Belani, Biradar and
Kulkarni, who were junior to the applicants in the seniority-list 1-
17 issued in pursuance of the Allahabad High Court judgment
dated 201h February, 1985, have become senior to the applicants
in the seniority-list 1-5 issued as per the guidelines of this Court
E contained in the order dated 26.4.2000 in CA No.4339 of 1995
in which the criteria for fixation of seniority was recruitment year.
In paragraphs (iii) to (xvii) it is asserted as under: -
'This Hon'ble Court in its order dated 28.9.2006 in IA
No.16 in CA 4339 of 1995 has observed that they have
F not laid down any principle of law having universal
application. It means that the entire seniority list prepared
on the basis of Recruitment Year as per the direction
contained in this Hon'ble Court's order dated 26.4.2000
in CA No.4339 of 1995 stands. This Hon'ble Court in its
G order dated 28.9.2006 has directed to ensure that the
applicants do not suffer adversely due to implementation
of this Hon'ble Court's judgment dated 26.4.2000 in CA
4339 of 1995 and that has been ensured by the
implementation orders dated 21.1.2007 and 9.3.2007."
H
PROMOTEE TEL. ENG. FORUM & ORS. v. D.S. 453
MATHUR, SEC., DEPTT. OF TEL. [SIRPURKAR, J.]
--f After this a table has been given wherein S/Shri Belani, A
Biradar and Kulkarni have been shown seniors to all the
applicants. It is then asserted at the end of the table:
"From the chart given above it is clear that Shri Belani/
Biradar/ Kulkarni are senior to all the applicants in respect
of Recruitment Year and, therefore, they are senior to the B
applicants in the seniority list prepared on the basis of the
Recruitment year as per the guidelines of this Hon'ble
Court in their order dated 26.4.2000 in CA No.4339/1995
and in their judgment dated 28.9.2006, This Hon'ble Court
has clearly stated in last para of the judgment that "before c
parting with this judgment we may observe that we have
not laid down any principle or law having universal
application. We have only clarified and given effect to an
earlier judgment of this court rendered in an extraordinary
situation". From the position as explained above the order D
dated 28.9.2006 of this Hon'ble Court has been fully
complied with by the respondent and there is no deliberate
and willful disobedience of the judgment of this Hon'ble
Court. Therefore, the claim of petitioners regarding
seniority at par with Shri Belani/Biradar/Kulkarni is
E
\_
baseless and devoid of merits. Accordingly the
representations of the petitioners have been disposed of
by letter dated 10.4.2007 ."
From this counter it is clear that inspite of the fact that the
petitioners' seniority was finally decided by the judgment in F
Parmanan Lal's case and the petitioners' claims were also
accepted by the various courts which verdicts had become final,
yet the respondent has moved on the basis of later judgment of
this Court dated 26.4.2000 interpreting it in its own manner. The
interpretation which has been put forward by the Government is G
that the advantage of the judgment was available only to those
employees who were parties to that particular petition.
15. It is obvious that a completely wrong view has been
taken by the Government. It was specifically held by this Court
in its order dated 28.9.2006 that such of the employees, whose H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
A claims for the seniority on the basis of the qualifying year had 't-
become final because of the orders of the courts, should not be
disturbed on account of its subsequent judgment dated
26.4.2000. There can be no doubt and it is also admitted that
all the applicants were senior to S/Shri Belani, Biradar and
B Kulkarni on the basis of their having passed the examination
earlier in the year 1974 or so. Learned counsel also agreed
that in the seniority-list, based on the judgment of the Allahabad
High Court, the applicants were senior whereas S/Shri Belani,
Biradar and Kulkarni were juniors because they had passed
the examination later on, though they were senior in service to
c the petitioners. Once this Court, in its order dated 28.9.2006
had declared that the earlier seniority gained on the basis of
the court's orders was not to be disturbed, the respondent-
Government was bound to keep the seniority of the applicants
untouched. It has been argued before us that their numbers in
D the seniority were improved. However, we cannot forget the fact
that S/Shri Belani, Biradar and Kulkarni were placed above '(
these applicants which is clear from the table given at the end
of para (iv) of the counter affidavit. This could not have been
permitted and it was indeed not permitted by this Court. We
E cannot accept the so-called interpretation put forward by the
respondent on the order that the benefit of the judgment of this
Court would be available only to those who were parties in that
particular appeal. Such is not the import at all. The observations
of this Court in order dated 28.9.2006 are extremely clear.
F 16. It is nowhere asserted by the respondent that the rights
of the petitioners were not finally crystallized by the orders of
the Tribunal and/or courts. Indeed that could not be the position r
as otherwise the petitioners could not have been put above S/
Shri Belani, Biradar and Kulkarni. It may that the seniority of the
G applicants was restored and was placed at the same place in
the earlier seniority-list, however, that by itself cannot be a proper
implementation since the seniority of S/Shri Belani, Biradar and
Kulkarni was not only improved but they were rendered senior
to all the applicants which was not the position earlier. It is, '
H therefore, clear that the order of this Court dated 28.9.2006 has
PROMOTEE TEL. ENG. FORUM & ORS. v. D.S. 455
MATHUR, SEC., DEPTT. OF TEL. [SIRPURKAR, J.]
been clearly breached. The so7called interpretation put forth by A
.. -t
the respondent is wholly incorrect.
17. We would have ordinarily taken a very strict view of
this obvious breach committed. However, considering that the
matter is very old and is also a complicated one, there can be a
scope for misunderstanding of the order of this Court. We, B
;. therefore leave it at that.
18. We are not impressed at all by the contention of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that since
the respondent has passed the orders disposing of the
representations. of the petitioners, the only way left for the
c
petitioners was to challenge the same by way of an independent
Original Application before the Tribunal. It is more than a decade
that the petitioners are fighting for their rights. Their rights had
already been crystallized by various orders passed by the
Tribunals and the courts which fact is not denied by the D
)' respondent. On the top of it, the petitioners were again required
to come before this Court by way of an Interim Application being
IA No.16 and that has resulted in denial of the fruits of the orders
which were passed in their favour by the Tribunals and the courts.
Under such circumstances, to push them again to file Original E
Application challenging the obviously erroneous orders passed
~
by the respondent disposing of the representations of the
petitioners would be a travesty of justice.
19. We, therefore, direct that the respondents shall re-
F
arrange the seniority in terms of the principles laid down in
.,. Parmanand La l's case restoring their earlier position and shall
not put any employee over and above the present petitioners
on the basis of the seniority in service in the e.ntry year, more
particularly S/Shri Belani, Biradar and Kulkarni shall not be put
over and above the petitioners herein. This shall be done within G
8 weeks from the date of this judgment.
20. In the result the present petition is allowed. However, .
in the circumstances we pass no order as costs.
N.J. Petition allowed. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "seniority"Sign in to search