R. MOHAJAN & ORS.versusSHEFALI SENGUPTA & ORS.

                        [2012] 3 S.C.R. 974


A                      R. MOHAJAN & ORS.
                                  v.
                   SHEFALI SENGUPTA & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 3297 of 2012)
                          MARCH 30, 2012
8
         [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.J

         Service law - Promotion - Seniority list challenged by
   respondents - Certain directions issued by the Tribunal to the
C appellants-department, however, non-implementation of the
   said directions by the appellants -: Tribunal in the contempt
 · petition filed before it directing the appellants to be present
   before the court to receive the charges of contempt - On
   appeal, h1':Jld: Though the Tribunal expressed that its order was
D not complied with, the appellants pointed out that as per the
   order the promotion was granted to the respondents from the
   earliest date which is admissible as per rules and as provided
   by the Railway Board; that the Tribunal had ignored the fact
   that the consequential benefits at par with juniors have been
E complied with - Also the seniority of the respondents has
   been protected and granting promotion to a grade to which
   they had not yet obtained in their parent department would not
   only deprive promotional benefit to those who have been
   serving in the department but would involve the promotion
F policy being revised - While considering the seniority or
   promotion, the court cannot go into and examine the same
   contrary to the Rules/Policy applicable to the persons
   concerned framed by the Government - Thus, the direction
   of the Tribunal in the contempt petition is unsustainable and
   set aside - Since the appellants have. complied with the
G earlier order of the Tribunal, contempt petition dismissed.
         Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Order passed
    by the Tribunal in a contempt proceedings before it - Appeal

H                                974
  R. MOHAJAN & ORS. v. SHEFALI SENGUPTA &              975
                   ORS.
by way of special leave before the Supreme Court against the A
order of the Tribunal, without exercising the remedy before the
High Court - Maintainability of - Held: Appeal by way of
special leave is maintainable and is the appropriate remedy
- Any order or decision of the Tribunal punishing for contempt
is appealable u/s. 19 of the 1971 Act to the Supreme Court B
only- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 19 - Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 - 17.

    Respondents filed an application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal challenging their seniority lists. By C
order dated 09.05.2005, the Tribunal allowed the
application with a direction to the appellants-Department
to grant the respondents seniority from the date of their
appointment on their respective posts prior to their
transfers to the Railways with all consequential benefits.
The appellants did not implement the directions of the D
Tribunal, as such the respondents filed contempt petition
before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order dated
11.06.2010 directing the contemnors/appellants to be
present in the court on the next date of hearing for
receiving the charges of contempt and adjourned the E
matter. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeal.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1.1. After the order dated 09.05.2005 passed F
by the Tribunal the respondents, who are the
beneficiaries of that order, filed a petition before the
Central Administrative Tribunal contending that the order
has not been implemented in full by the appellants. After
considering its earlier order dated 09.05.2005 and the
relief granted to the personnel, the Tribunal in the G
contempt proceedings, by the impugned order, directed
the contemnors (appellants) to be present in Court on the
next date of hearing and to receive the charges of
contempt. In such circumstances, the aggrieved parties
are at liberty to approach this Court without exercising H
    976    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A   the remedy before the High Court, as observed in L.
    Chandra Kumar's case. It is clear from the direction in L
    Chandra Kum~r's case that no appeal from the decision
    of the Tribunal will directly lie before this Court under
    Article 136 of the Constitution of India, but instead, the
B   aggrieved party has to move the High Court under
    Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and thereafter from
    the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, the
    aggrieved parties are free to approach this Court. In view
    of the said direction, though the counsel for the
c   respondents was right in contending the same, however,
    the Constitution Bench had no occasion to consider the
    order/orders passed by the CAT in contempt
    proceedings. [Para 7, 8] [981-D-F; 983-A-C]

       1.2. In view of the clarification by the three-Judge
D Bench of this Court in T. Sudhakar Prasad's case that any
  order or decision of the Tribunal punishing for contempt
  is appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts
  Act to the Supreme Court only. The Supreme Court in the
  case of L. Chandra Kumar nowhere stated that orders of
E the Tribunal holding the contemner guilty and punishing
  for contempt shall also be subject to judicial scrutiny of
  the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
  in spite of remedy of statutory appeal provided by Section
  19 of the Contempt of Courts Act being available, the
F objection as to the maintainability of the instant appeal
  is rejected and is held as maintainable. [Paras 8 and 9]
  [986-B-C-F]
      1.3. Since according to the respondents, the
  directions of the order dated 09.05.2005 by the Tribunal,
G have not been complied with, they filed contempt petition
  before the CAT. Pursuant to the representations made by
  the respondents in terms of the directions of the CAT
  dated 09.05.2005, S.E. Railways, who is the relevant
  authority, by communication dated 20.06.2005 intimated
H
  R. MOHAJAN & ORS. v. SHEFALI SENGUPTA &             977
                        ORS.

certain information to all the respondents. Though the        A
CAT expressed that the said compliance was not in tune
with its order dated 09.05.2005 as rightly pointed out by
the appellant that as per the order, promotion was granted
to the respondents from the earliest date which is
admissible as per rules and as provided by the Railway        B
Board; and the Tribunal ignored the fact that the
consequential benefits at par with juniors have been
complied with properly. The appellants also pointed out
that the Tribunal wrongly misunderstood that the claim of
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for further promotion with 'ST' who     c
was promoted as Sr. Clerk which is unsustainable as he
had been promoted to the higher grade of Head Clerk
prior to their joining the department and those particulars
are available in the office records; and that the seniority
of the respondents was protected and granting                 0
promotion to a grade to which they had not yet obtained
in their parent department would not only deprive
promotional benefit to those who have been serving in
the department but would involve the promotion policy
being revised. While considering the seniority or             E
promotion, the Court cannot go into and examine the
same contrary to the Rules/Policy applicable to the
persons concerned framed by the Government. [Paras
10, 11 and 12) [987-D; 989-H; 990-A; 991-8-D]

    1.4. The impugned direction of the Tribunal in the F
order dated 11.06.2010 cannot be sustained and is set
aside. Inasmuch as the appellants have complied with the
earlier order of the Tribunal dated 09.05.2005, the
contempt petition is dismissed. [Para 13] [991-E-F]
                                                              G
   L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 3
SCC 261: 1997 (2) SCR 1186; T. Sudhakar Prasad vs.
Government of A.P. and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 516: 2000 (5)
Suppl. SCR 610 - referred to.
                                                              H
    978      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 3 S.C.R


A                           Case Law Reference:
     1997 (2) SCR 1186              Referred to.      Para 5, 7 8
     2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 610        Referred to.      Para 5, 8, 9

B       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    3297 of 2012.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 11.06.2010 of the
    Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in CPC No.
    113 of 2005 (O.A. No. 203 of 1997).
c
       Mohan Jain, ASG, D.K. Thakur, C.S. Khan, Sheetal
    Menon, 8.K. Prasad, Dr. Chaudhary Shamsuddin Khan, Arvind
    Kumar Sharma for the Appellants.

         R.K. Gupta, S.K. Gupta, M.K. Singh, Shekhar Kumar for
0   the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.
E        2. This appeal is filed against the order dated 11.06.2010
    passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench
    in CPC No. 113 of 2005 (O.A. No. 203of1997) whereby the
    Tribunal passed an order directing the appellants herein to be
    present in court on the next date of hearing for receiving the
F   charges of contempt and adjourned the matter to 30.07.2010.

          3. Brief facts:
        (a} The respondents herein were initially employed on the
G   post of L.D.C. in DGS&D, Calcutta on various dates.
    Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein were further promoted as UDC
    in DGS&D. Their services were being utilized in purchase
    department for procurement against the ad hoc indents of the
    indenting Ministries/Departments. A decision was taken by the
H   Central Government that the work relating to procurement could
   R. MOHAJAN & ORS. v. SHEFALI SENGUPTA &                    979
            ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

be transferred to the concerned department and in this view,         A
the respondents were transferred vide order dated 08.04.1992
to the Office of General Manager, Eastern Railway, S.E.
Railway, C.L.W. and Metro Railway. They were placed under
the disposal of the Controller of Stores, S.E. Railway in their
existing capacity, pay and grade w.e.f. 24.04.1992.                  B

     (b) On 18.10.1994, the Railway Board issued an order
regarding the absorbed persons, who came to be transferred
from DGS&D to Zonal Railways and Production Units wherein
it has been mentioned that these employees may be absorbed           C
in the Railways to which they have been transferred and
assigned seniority on the basis of date of their regular
promotion/appointment in the relevant grade. In terms of the
order passed by the Railway Board, their absorption and
seniority list was issued vide Office Order dated 10.02.1995.
Based on the seniority list, they were given promotion to the        D
next post of Head Clerk and Senior Clerk vide Office Orders
dated 23.06.1995 and 31.10.1995 respectively. Subsequently
their seniority was published in the grade of Head Clerk and
Senior Clerk vide orders dated 28.07 .2000, 12.07 .2001,
29.10.2003, and 27 .01.1994 placing at their appropriate place       E
as per their original seniority assigned vide Office Order dated
10.02.1995.

      (c) Questioning the said order of seniority, the respondents
herein made several verbal representations to the authorities        F
for promotion retrospectively, but no steps have been taken by
them. Challenging the seniority list, the respondents filed O.A.
No. 203 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Calcutta Bench, Kolkata. By order dated 09.05.2005, the
Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondents herein     G
with a direction to the Department (appellants herein) to grant
them their due seniority from the date of their appointment on
their respective posts in DGS&D prior to their transfers to the
Railways and they shall also be entitled to the benefits of next
below rule with all consequential benefits except any arrear that
may be payable shall be restricted to from the date of filing of     H
    980     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A the application and gave three months time to comply with the
  order. By office order dated 20.06.2005, the Chief Personnel
  Officer informed the respondents herein that their names do not
  come under the zone of consideration as per the seniority list
  published on 27.01.2004 and, therefore, they are not
B considered for the post of O.S. Grade II on restructuring basis.

        (d) Not satisfied with the order passed by the Chief
  Personnel Officer, the respondents filed CPC No. 113 of 2005
  (OA No.203of1997) before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order
  dated 07 .04.2008 observed that there is difference of three
C years in the matter of promotion and granted two months' time
  to the Department to comply with the directions and directed
  to list the matter on 17.06.2008 for orders. As the appellants
  herein were not fully implementing the orders, the Tribunal, vide
  order dated 23.03.2010, directed for issuance of Rule 8 notice
D to the contemnors/appellants herein returnable after two months
  and directed to list the matter for orders on 03.05.2010. On
  30.03.2010, counsel for the contemnors/appellants herein
  appeared before the Tribunal and placed on record various
  documents to show that the orders were, in fact, complied with.
E Not satisfied with the report filed by the Department, the Tribunal
  passed the impugned order dated 11.06.2010 directing the
  contemnors/appellants herein to present before it to receive
  charges of contempt and adjourned the matter for 30.07.2010.

F        (e) Against the said order, the appellants/Contemnors
    preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

          4. Heard Mr. Mohan Jain, learned Additional Solicitor
    General for the appellants and Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel
    for the respondents.
G
       5. At the outset, Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the
  respondents raised a preliminary objection as to the
  maintainability of the present appeal by the appellants before
  this Court without exercising the remedy before the High Court
H for which he relied on the decision of the Constitution Bench
   R. MOHAJAN & ORS. v. SHEFALI SENGUPTA &                   981
               ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.,         A
(1997) 3 SCC 261. On the other hand, Mr. Mohan Jain, learned
Additional Solicitor General, by drawing our attention to Section
19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, submitted that the
present appeal by way of special leave is maintainable and is
the appropriate remedy for the appellants. In this regard, he        B
heavily relied on a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in
T. Sudhakar Prasad vs. Government of A.P. & Ors., (2001) 1
SCC 516 which interpreted the decision of the Constitution
Bench of this Court rendered in L. Chandra Kumar (supra).

     6. Before going into the merits of the impugned order of
                                                                     c
the Tribunal, let us resolve the maintainability of the present
appeal.

      7. After the order dated 09.05.2005 passed by the Tribunal
in O.A. No. 203 of 1997, the respondents, who are the                D
beneficiaries of that order, filed C.P.C. No. 113 of 2005 before
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench contending
that the order has not been implemented in full by the appellants
herein. After considering its earlier order dated 09.05.2005 and
the relief granted to the personnel, the Tribunal, by the impugned   E
order, directed the contemnors (appellants herein) to be present
in Court on the next date of hearing and to receive the charges
of contempt. It is clear from the above direction that the said
order came to be passed in a contempt proceeding. In such
circumstances, the aggrieved parties are at liberty to approach      F
this Court without exercising the remedy before the High Court,
as observed in L. Chandra Kumar (supra).

     8. In L. Chandra Kumar (supra), the Constitution Bench
with regard to approaching the High Court against the order of
the CAT has held as under:                                           G

    "91. It has also been contended before us that even in
    dealing with cases which are properly before the Tribunals,
    the manner in which justice is dispensed by them leaves
    much to be desired. Moreover, the remedy provided in the         H
    982       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2012) 3 S.C.R.


A         parent statutes, by way of an appeal by special leave under
          Article 136 of the Constitution, is too costly and
          inaccessible for it to be real and effective. Furthermore,
          the result of providing such a remedy is that the docket of
          the Supreme Court is crowded with decisions of Tribunals
B         that are challenged on relatively trivial grounds and it is
          forced to perform the role of a first appellate court. We
          have already emphasised the necessity for ensuring that
          the High Courts are able to exercise judicial
          superintendence over the decisions of the Tribunals under
c         Article 227 of the Constitution. In R.K. Jain case, after
          taking note of these facts, it was suggested that the
          possibility of an appeal from the Tribunal on questions of
          law to a Division Bench of a High Court within whose
          territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal falls, be pursued. It
          appears that no follow-up action has been taken pursuant
D
          to the suggestion. Such a measure would have improved
          matters considerably. Having regard to both the
          aforestated contentions, we hold that all decisions of
          Tribunals, whether created pursuant to Article 323-A or
          Article 323-B of the Constitution, will be subject to the High
E         Court's writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the
          Constitution, before a Division Bench of the High Court
          within whose territorial jurisdiction the particular Tribunal
          falls.

F          H2. We may add here that under the existing system, direct
           appeals have been provided from the decisions of all
           Tribunals to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
          ·Constitution. In view of our above-mentioned observations,
           this situation will also stand modified. In the view that we
G          have taken, no appeal from the decision of a Tribunal will
           directly lie before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of
           the Constitution; but instead, the aggrieved party will be
           entitled to move the High Court under Articles 226/227 of
           the Constitution and from the decision of the Division
H          Bench of the High Court the aggrieved party could move
   R. MOHAJAN & ORS. v. SHEFALI SENGUPTA &                   983
            ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

     this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution."              A

It is clear from the above dictum that no appeal from the
decision of the Tribunal will directly lie before this Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, but instead, the
aggrieved party has to move the High Court under Articles            8
226/227 of the Constitution and thereafter from the decision of
the Division Bench of the High Court, the aggrieved parties
are free to approach this Court. In view of the above direction,
though the learned counsel for the respondents is right in
contending the same, however, the Constitution Bench had no          C
occasion to consider the order/orders passed by the CAT in
contempt proceedings. This aspect has been considered by
the subsequent three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in T.
Sudhakar Prasad (supra). The question posed before the Court
was that whether the Administrative Tribunals set up under the
provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, do they        D
or do they not have power to punish for their contempt? After
going into the decision in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) in detail,
this Court has concluded as under:

    "17. It is thus clear that the Constitution Bench has not        E
    declared the provisions of Article 323-A(2)(b) or Article
    323-B(3)(d) or Section 17 of the Act ultra vires the
    Constitution. The High Court has, in its judgment under
    appeal, noted with emphasis the Tribunal having been
    compared to like "courts of first instance" and then             F
    proceeded to hold that the status of Administrative
    Tribunals having been held to be equivalent to courts or
    Tribunals subordinate to the High Court the jurisdiction to
    hear their own contempt was lost by the Administrative
    Tribunals and the only course available to them was either       G
    to make a reference to the High Court or to file a complaint
    under Sections 193, 219 and 228 IPC as provided by
    Section 30 of the Act. The High Court has proceeded on
    the reasoning that the Tribunal having been held to be
    subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Articles
                                                                     H
    226/227 of the Constitution and its decisions having been
    984   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A       subjected to judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court
        under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, the right to file
        an appeal to the Supreme Court against an order passed
        by the Tribunal punishing for contempt under Section 17
        of the Act was defeated and on these twin grounds Section
B     · 17 of the Act became unworkable and unconstitutional. We
        do not find any basis for such conclusion or inference
        being drawn from the judgments of this Court in the cases
        of Supreme Court Bar Assn. or L Chandra Kumar or any
        other decision of this Court. The Constitution Bench has
c       in so many words said that the jurisdiction conferred on
        the High Courts under Articles 226/227 could not be taken
        away by conferring the same on any court or Tribunal and
        jurisdiction hitherto exercised by the High Court now
        legislatively conferred on Tribunals to the exclusion of the
        High Court on specified matters, did not amount to
D
        assigning Tribunals a status of substitute for the High Court
        but such jurisdiction was capable of being conferred
        additionally or supp/emenfal/y on any court or Tribunal
        which is not a concept strange to the scheme of the
        Constitution more so in view of Articles 323-A and 323-
E       B. Clause (2)(b) of Article 323-A specifically empowers
        Parliament to enact a law specifying the jurisdiction and
        powers, including the power to punish for contempt, being
        conferred on the Administrative Tribunals constituted under
        Article 323-A. Section 17 of the Act derives its legislative
F       sanctity therefrom. The power of the High Court to punish
        for contempt of itself under Article 215 of the Constitution
        remains intact but the jurisdiction, power and authority to
        hear and decide the matters covered by sub-section (1)
        of Section 14 of the Act having been conferred on the
G       Administrative Tribunals the jurisdiction of the High Court
        to that extent has been taken away and hence the same
        jurisdiction which vested in the High Court to punish for
        contempt of itself in the matters now falling within the
       jurisdiction of Tribunals if those matters would have
H       continued to be heard by the High Court has now been
R. MOHAJAN & ORS. v. SHEFALI SENGUPTA &                    985
           ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

 conferred on the Administrative Tribunals under Section 17        A
 of the Act. The jurisdiction is the same as vesting in the
 High Courts under Article 215 of the Constitution read with
 the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The
 need for enacting Section 17 arose, firstly, to avoid doubts,
 and secondly, because the Tribunals are not "courts of            B
 record". While holding the proceedings under Section 17
 of the Act the Tribunal remains a Tribunal and so would be
 amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles
 226/227 of the Constitution subject to the well-established
 rules of self-restraint governing the discretion of the High      c
 Court to interfere with the pending proceedings and upset
 the interim or interlocutory orders of the Tribunals. However
 any order or decision of the Tribunal punishing for
 contempt shall be appealable only to the Supreme Court
 within 60 days from the date of the order appealed against        0
 in view of the specific provision contained in Section 19
 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 read with Section 17
 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 17 of the
 Administrative Tribunals Act is a piece of legislation by
 reference. The provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act
 are not as if lifted and incorporated in the text of the          E
 Administrative Tribunals Act (as is in the case of legislation
 by incorporation); they remain there where they are, yet
 while reading the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act
 in the context of Tribunals, the same will be so read as to
 read the word "Tribunal" in place of the word "High Court"        F
 wherever it occurs, subject to the modifications set out in
 Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Section 19
 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides for appeals.
 In its text also by virtue of Section 17 of the Administrative
 Tribunals Act, 1985 the word "High Court" shall be read           G
 as "Tribunal". Here, by way of abundant caution, we make
 it clear that the concept of intra-Tribunal appeals i.e. appeal
 from an order or decision of a Member of a Tribunal sitting
 singly to a Bench of not less than two Members of the
 Tribunal is alien to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.      H
    986       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2012] 3 S.C.R


A         The question of any order made under the provisions of
          the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by a Member of the
          Tribunal sitting singly, if the rules of business framed by the
          Tribunal or the appropriate Government permit such
          hearing, being subjected to an appeal before a Bench of
B         two or more Members of the Tribunal therefore does not
          arise. Any order or decision of the Tribunal punishing for
          contempt is appealable under Section 19 of the Act to the
          Supreme Court only. The Supreme Court in the case of
          L. Chandra Kumar has nowhere said that orders of the
c         Tribunal holding the contemner guilty and punishing for
          contempt shall also be subject to judicial scrutiny of the
          High Court under Articles 2261227 of the Constitution in
          spite of remedy of statutory appeal provided by Section
           19 of the Contempt of Courts Act being available. The
          distinction between orders passed by the Administrative
D
          Tribunal on matters covered by Section 14(1) of the
          Administrative Tribunals Act and orders punishing for
          contempt under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act
          read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
          is this: as against the former there is no remedy of appeal
E         statutorily provided, but as against the latter statutory
          remedy of appeal is provided by Section 19 of the
          Contempt of Courts Act itself." (Emphasis supplied)

         9. In view of the clarification by the three-Judge Bench of
F   this Court in T. Sudhakar Prasad (supra), we reject the
    objection as to the maintainability of the present appeal and
    hold the same as maintainable.

       10. Now let us consider the merits of the impugned order.
G Since we are concerned about the question as to whether the
  directions of the CAT have been implemented or not, there is
  no need to refer all the factual details once again. The
  operative part of the directions of the order dated 09.05.2005
  of the CAT reads as under:
H         "6. In this view of what has been said and discussed above,
  R. MOHAJAN & ORS. v. SHEFALI SENGUPTA &                    987
           ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM. J.]

    this original application is allowed with a direction to the     A
    respondents to grant them their due seniority from the date
    of their appointment on their respective posts in DGS&D
    prior to their transfers to the present organization and they
    shall also be entitled to the benefits of next below rule with
    all consequential benefits except any arrear that may be         B
    payable shall be restricted to from the date of filing of this
    original application. However, in case the applicants have
    already been granted the due benefits, the details of the
    same shall be furnished to the applicants. This order shall
    be complied within a period of three months from the date        c
    of the receipf of a copy of this order. However, there shall
    be no order as to costs."
Since according to the respondents, the said directions have
not been complied with, they filed contempt petition being
C.P.C. No. 113 of 2005 before the CAT. It is useful to refer that    D
pursuant to the representations made by the respondents
herein, in terms of the directions of the CAT dated 09.05.2005,
S.E. Railways, who is the relevant authority, by communication
dated 20.06.2005 intimated the following information to all the
respondents herein. The same are as follows:                         E
                                "SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY
                                      CPO'S OFFICE/GRC
                                          Date: 20.6.2005
    No. P/Stores/CAT/CAL/OA 203-97
                                                                     F
    To
      1.    Smt. Shefali Sengupta, Head Clerk/COS's Office/
            GRC
      2.    Sri Probir Kumar Nath, Head Clerk/COS's Office/
            GRC                                                      G

      3.    Sri Apurba Kumar Mukherjee. Sr. Clerk/COS's
            Office GRC

    (THROUGH Sr. MATERIAL MANAGER (M&P)/GRC Ref:                     H
    988         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A          1)     COS/GRC's letter No. S/58/A/14/Pt.111/Gr.C/78
                  dated 27.5.2005

           2)     CAT/CAL's order dated 9.5 05 in OA No. 203/1997

                In response to representation dated 8.6.2005
B         submitted by the above Applicants and in compliance of
          Hon'ble CAT/KOL's order dated 9.5.2005 in OA No. 203/
          1997 the following information/compliance report is
          furnished to the representationist for their appraisal.

c               That in terms of this office order No .. OP/Stores/39A
          dated 10.2.95 their absorption and seniority case had been
          settled according to Rly. Board's guidelines communicated
          to this Rly. Vide their letter No. E(NG) 1/92/TR/7 dated
          18.10.94 assigning their seniority from the date of regular
D         promotion/appointment to the relevant grade they were
          holding at the time of transfer to this Railway as follows:

    S. Name              Designation     Date of     Date of
    No.                  & Scale         appointment promotion
                                                     to the next
E
                                                     grade
    1     Smt. Shefali Sr. Clerk (1200- 30.5.1975    27.2.82
          Sengupta       2040)
    2     Sr. Probir Kr. -do-            6.2.1976    1.1.1983
F         Nath
    3     Sri Apurba Kr. Jr. Clerk (950- 17.11.1982
          Mukherjee      1500)
    4     Kum. Khama Peon (750-940) 31.3.1983
          Banerjee
G         Based on the assignment of seniority, they were given
          promotion to the next post of Hd. Clerk and Sr. Clerk vide
          00 No. P/Stores/197 dated 23.6.95 and P/Stores/315 dt.
          31.10.95 respectively.

H                Subsequently their seniority was published in the
   R. MOHAJAN & ORS. v. SHEFALI SENGUPTA &                    989
                ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

     grade of Head Clerk and Senior Clerk vide order No. P/           A
     Stores/Revised Seniority/2000 dated 28.07.2000, P/
     Stores/Seniority/COS dated 12.07.2001 and P/Stores/
     Seniority list/COS 29.10.2003, P/Stores/Seniority List/
     COS dated 27 .01.1994 placing at their appropriate place
     as per their original seniority assigned vide Office Order       B
     dated 10.02.1995.

           Thus it is clear from the above position that their date
     of promotion in their earlier cadre of DGS&D has been
     protected and they have been assigned seniority in               C
     Railway considering length of service in the grade of
     DGS&D.

            In the seniority list dated 27.1.2004, Smt. Sengupta
     and Sri Nath are at S.Nos. 20 & 21 in the present selection
     staff in general seniority upto 9 has been called 5 persons      D
     senior to them in the general seniority are also not called
     because in the present selection of SO Gr.II, COS's office
     in scale Rs.5500-9000/- (RSRP) their name do not come
     under the zone of consideration as per the seniority list
     published in the year mentioned above. Hence they are not        E
     considered for the post of OS Gr. II on restructuring basis.

           The representationists may be informed accordingly
     serving one copy of this letter to each.
                                                            Sd/-      F
                                                 (B.N. SOREN)
                                       Sr. Personnel Officer (W)
    Copy to: COS/GRC for information and necessary action.
                                                           Sd/-       G
                                   For Chief Personnel Officer"
      11. Though the CAT has expressed that the said
compliance is not in tune with its order dated 09.05.2005, as
rightly pointed out by Mr. Mohan Jain, learned ASG, that as per
the order, promotion was granted to the respondents from the          H
    990      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 3 S.C.R


A   earliest date which is admissible as per rules and as provided
    by the Railway Board. As pointed out by the appellants, the
    Tribunal has ignored the fact that the consequential benefits at
    par with juniors have been complied with properly. This was
    explained as under:
B
         "There was difference of 3 years in the matter of promotion
         for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. In terms of Railway Boards
         Lr. No. E(NG) 1/9/2Tr/7 dated 18.10.1994 Smt. Shefali
         Sengupta and Prabir Kumar Nath were granted seniority
         of the post of Sr. Clerk w.e.f. 1.1.83 and Sri Apurba Kumar
c        Mukherjee was granted seniority of the post of Jr. Clerk
         w.e.f. 27.11.82 i.e. the date of promotion/appointment at
       · DGS&D.

          In terms of Railway Board's Lr. No. E(NG) 1-96/SRG/22
D         dated 30.10.96 the seniority assigned to DGS&D
          transferors on absorption in terms of Board's letter dated
          18:10.1994 would be operative in respect of promotions
          made/to be made after the date of their absorption and
          that the same would not affect the promotions already
E         ordered on regular basis prior to the date of such
          absorption.

          Since Smt. Shefali Sengupta and Prabir Kumar Nath
          joined as Sr. Clerk on 24.4.92 are not entitled for a
          promotion prior to 24.4.92 and accordingly they were given
F         promotional benefits at par with their Junior Sri Subrata
          Saha who was Sr. Clerk on the date of their joining on
          24.4.92. Accordingly, they were promoted to the post of
          Head Clerk at par with their Junior Sri Saha w.e.f. 30.9.92.
          Since Sri S.K. Talukdar had already been promoted as
G         OS-II prior to their joining the consequential benefit of
          promotion would not be extended in terms of Board's Lr.
          Dated 30.10.96. Similarly Maniral Islam whose date of
          appointment to Sr. Clerk on 1.2.88 S.E. Rly was 3.5.84
          promoted to Sr. Clerk on 1.2.88 prior to joining of Apurba
H         Kr. Mukherjee on 24.4.92. Hence Sri Mukherjee will not get
   R. MOHAJAN & ORS. v. SHEFALI SENGUPTA &                     991
                 ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

       the benefit at par with Maniral Islam as per Board's letter     A
       dated 30.10.96, thus the order has been fully complied with
       and there is no difference in promotion for respondent Nos.
       1 & 2."

     12. In addition to the same, the appellants have also             8
pointed out that the Tribunal wrongly misunderstood that the
claim of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for further promotion with Sri
Talukdar, who was promoted as Sr. Clerk on 14.02.83 which
is unsustainable as he had been promoted to the higher grade
of Head Clerk prior to their joining the department and those          C
particulars are available in the office reC•irds. It is also pointed
out that the seniority of the respondents has been protected and
granting promotion to a grade to which they had not yet obtained
in their parent department would not only deprive promotional
benefit to those who have been serving in the department but
would involve the promotion policy being revised. While                D
considering the seniority or promotion, the Court cannot go into
and examine the same contrary to the Rules/Policy applicable
to the persons concerned framed by the Government.

     13. In the light of the above discussion and of the factual       E
information furnished, we are unable to sustain the impugned
direction of the Tribunal in the order dated 11.06.2010,
consequently the same is set aside. Inasmuch as the appellants
have complied with the earlier order of the Tribunal dated
09.05.2005, the contempt petition is dismissed. The appeal is          F
allowed. No order as to costs.

N.J.                                             Appeal allowed.