Holding

The Tribunal’s finding of contempt was unsustainable as its order only required consideration of promotion, not a mandatory promotion, and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

The case concerned P.M. Rangasami, an officer of the Indian Economic Service, who claimed that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had directed his promotion to Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) based on his original seniority. The Union of India argued that the Tribunal’s order only required consideration of his promotion, not a mandatory promotion, and held the government guilty of contempt for not promoting him. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the Tribunal’s direction, the parameters for contempt, and the respondent’s right to seek redress in an appropriate forum. It held that there was no directive for automatic promotion, only for consideration, and therefore the contempt finding was unjustified. Consequently, the contempt order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, directing that any grievance be pursued through proper legal channels.

Issues considered

The nature of the Tribunal’s order: whether it mandated promotion or merely required consideration of promotion.
Whether the Union’s failure to promote the respondent amounted to contempt of the Tribunal.
Whether the respondent could challenge the promotion decision in a separate proceeding.
The effect of retrospective reservation in promotion under the Indian Economic Service Rules, 1961.

Subjects

promotionsenioritycontempt of courtCentral Administrative TribunalIndian Economic Servicereservation in promotionHigher Administrative Gradeseniority listreview petition

Judgment

.... UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. A
v.
P.M. RANGASAMI

MAY 15,2007

[DR ARlflT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.) B

Service Law-Promotion-Direction of Tribunal lo Appellant to
.. consider Respondent for promotion to Higher Administrative Grade (HAG)
>-- with reference to his original seniority in Grade-III-Case of Respondent
considered but he was not recommended for promotion-Appellant held
c
guilty of contempt for deliberate non-compliance with the direction of
Tribunal-Justification of-Held, not justified-There was no direction for
promotion and only for consideration-Question of any automatic promotion
did not arise-Tribunal never held that Respondent was entitled to
promotion-Contempt of Court. D
Respondent was in the Indian Economic Service. Tribunal directed
..., Appellant to consider Respondent for Higher Administrative Grade (HAG)
with reference to his original seniority in Grade-ill i.e. w.e.f. the date on which
T his alleged juniors in Grade-III of the service were promoted to HAG. The
Government issued a detailed speaking order dealing with the representation E
of the Respondent and informing him that his case has been considered in
terms of the order of the Tribunal and that upon such consideration he has
not been recommended for promotion to HAG.

Tribunal by the impugned judgment held Appellant No.I and its named
functionary guilty of contempt holding that its earlier directions had not been F
complied with deliberately and that the functionaries and various officers acted
"'t
in a canalized manner in flouting such directions. Hence the present appeal.
y

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. There was no direction for promotion and only for G
consideration. Therefore, the question of any automatic promotion does not
arise. The Tribunal never held that the respondent was entitled to promotion
notwithstanding losing seniority. It appears from the record that despite losing
~
seniority respondent was considered for promotion to HAG on the basis of
693 H

~
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 6 S.C.R.

A Tribunal's order. (Para 31] [700-C)
2. The parameters to be considered while deciding as to whether
contempt has been committed has been considered by this Court in several
cases. In view of thereof, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that contempt
had been committed. If the respondent has any grievance, it is open to him to
B assail the same in an appropriate proceeding. (Paras 32 and 33) (700-D, E)
Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., JT (2004) 8 SC
165, Director of Education, Uttaranchal and Ors. v. Ved Prakash Joshi and
Ors., JT (2005) 6 SC 276, Dilip Mitra v. Swadesh Chandra Bhadga, (2002) 6
Supreme 249, Chhoty Ram v. Urvashi Gulati and Anr., [2001) 7 SCC 530
C and Suresh Chandra Poddar v. Dhani Ram and Ors., [2002) 1 SCC 766,
referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 693 of
2006.

D From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.5.2006 of the CAT, Madras
Bench in CPNo. 21/2005.
...
Vikas Singh, ASG., S. Wasim A. Qadri, P. Parmc;.swaran for the Appellant.

R.M. Rangasami Respondent-In-Person.
E
Dr. A.K. Belwal Applicant-In-Person.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment
F rendered by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in
short the 'Tribunal'). The Tribunal was of the view that the appellant no. I and
its named functionary were guilty of contempt. However, another officer was ..
exonerated. It was held that the order dated 30.4.2004 passed by the Tribunal ~
in OA No.1002/2003 haJ not been complied with deliberately and, therefore,
the said act amounted to contempt.It was observed that the functionaries and
G various officers acted in a canalized manner in flouting the directions of the
Tribunal.

2. Background facts as projected by the appellants need to be noted in
some detail as there is great deal of factual controversies and much would j-
depend upon the effects of various acts on different dates.
H
U.0.1 v. P.M.RANGASAMI [PASAYAT,J.] 695
3. On 20.6.1968 Mr. M.M. Nampoothiry and Mr. D.K. Trehanjoined the A
Indian Economic Services in Grade IV. The respondent Mr. P.M. Rangaswami
also joiµed the Indian Economic Services in Grade IV on 8.7.1970

4. On 11.6.86, in view of the judgment of this Court in Narender Chadha
and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1986] 2 SCC 157 the reservation in
promotion was applied by which the seniority position in Grade III (Deputy B
Director) was fixed as follows:

Respondent Serial no 65 (7.3.1997)
•
).._
Shri Trehan Serial No. 137 (2.4.1980)
c
Shri Nampoothiry Serial No. 138 (2.4.1980)

5. On 26.2.1987 based on the said seniority position of Grade III,
promotions to Grade II Junior Administrative Grade (in short 'JAG')
(subsequently denoted as Grade I) was effected. The promotion was by
selection. The position as fixed as follows: D
...,. Respondent Serial no 41 (26.2.1987 being DPC date)

--..,. Shri Trehan Serial No. 16 (26.2.1987 being DPC date)

Shri Nampoothiry Serial No. 17 (26.2.1987 being DPC date) E
6. The notification issued on 9.3.1987 in respect of promotion to grade
II shows the respondent at serial number 41 and Shri Trehan and Shri
Nampoothiri at serial numbers 16 and 17 respectively. The same order was
fixed by DPC.
F
7. The respondent who was on deputation wrote to the cadre authority
on 17.6.1987 to let him know the date of his promotion with reference to his
immediate junior that is one Balraman as per notification dated 9.3.1987 referred
above.

8. Respondent who was on deputation was informed on 28.7.1987 that G
his proforma promotion is with effect from 9.3.1987 i.e. the date on which his
immediate junior i.e. Mr. Balraman assumed charge in the Labour Bureau,
Shimla. This position becomes important as according to appellant, respondent
in the present case was aware of his seniority position on deputation to grade
II at serial number 41, where he had slipped in position vis-a-vis Shri Trehan H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A and Shri Nampoothiri at serial numbers 16 and 17 respectively. The position
remained despite the reservation in promotion which gave him an edge in
promotion from grade IV to grade III. He suffered slippage in position during
promotion from Grade III to Grade II. The Officer had never represented on
this matter to the authorities.

B 9. The Union of India had submitted about his slippage to the Tribunal,
which unfortunately was not taken note of.

I0. As reservation in promotion was not provided in the statutory
Indian Economic Services Rules, 1961 (in short '!ES Rules') the Government
C issued notification on 22.9.1989 amending the rule providing for introducing
reservation in promotion and making the same retrospectively applicable.

11. While taking decision on the question of promotions to next grade
(Non functional Selection Grade in short 'NFGS ')

12. Government operated on the seniority list based on position in
D Grade I, arising from reservation in promotions in Grade III which according
to the respondents is the original seniority. This led to the promotions to
NFSG Grade in the following manner:

Effective Date
E Respondent 192.1991

Shri Trehan 1.6.1990

Shri Nampoothiry 1.7.1990

F 13. In the promotions to next grade i.e. Senior Administrative Grade (in
short 'SAG'), following was the position:

Effective Date

Respondent 7.3.1997
G
Shri Trehan 1994-95

Shri Nampoothiry 1994-95
j-
14. CAT Principal Bench in OA No. 1206 and 1288/93 by order dated
H 7.1.1999 struck down the notification of the Government providing for
U.0.I v. P.M. RANGASAMI [PASAYAT, J.] 697
resetvation in promotion to the extent the same made it retrospective. A
15. In a writ petition filed in the Delhi High Court challenging the order
of the Tribunal, the High Court virtually granted a status quo order restraining
the Government from reverting any person already promoted by its order
dated 29.1.1999.
B
16. The CAT judgment striking down retrospective reseivation in
promotion was implemented by the appellant no.I on 17.12.1999. Fresh seniority
list was issued in respect of every grade starting from Grade III (at which
stage the resetvation in promotion was .attempted earlier). As per this revised
seniority of these persons became as under:
c
Shri D.K. Trehan Shri Nampoothiri Shri P.M.
Rangaswamy (Respondent)
Original Revised Original Revised Original Revised

Yearof 1968 1968 1970
joining
D
Promotion 2.4.1980 30.11.1978 2.4.1980 30.11.1978 7.3.1977 18.3.1983
to Grade III

Promotion
to Grade II 26.2.1987 26.2.1987 26.2.1987@ 26.2.1987 26.2.1987# 12.5.1988
•
Promotion 1.6.1990 1.2.1990 1.7.1990 1.3.1990 19.2.1991 1.7.1992
to NFSG ,, / E
Promotion 1994-95 4.8.1995 1994-95 1-¥.8.1995 7.3.1997 21.6.2001
to SAG

Promotion 7.5.2002 1.5.2002
to HAG

(In the above chart, "Original" refers to the situation with resetvation F
in promotion to Grade III which was used for promotion to higher grade
't subsequently. "Revised" refers to the situation after implementing the judgment
Y of CAT dated 7.1.1999 which struck down retrospective amendment of Rule
13 of IES Rules for reseivation in promotion.)

As per above details,
G

* Seniority position of Trehan at serial number 16
@Seniority position ofNampoothiry at serial number 17

# Seniority position of Respondent at serial number 41 H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A 17. In OA No.1124/2000 filed by respondent, the Tribunal by order
dated 23.10.2001 directed that pending issuance of final seniority list the
applicant shall be considered for promotion from SAG in ac4;0rdance with his
original seniority. The benefit to be granted to the responlent was stated to
be interim in nature as the department was permitteq to issue the final
seniority list. ~
B
18. The DPC for Higher Administrative Grade (in short 'HAG') held on
19.12.2001 and 27.12.2001 took into account the order of Tribunal in OA 1124/
2000 dated 23 .10.2001. As per the directions of the Tribunal that until :final
seniority lists are issued, the applicant's case for further promotion fro'!l SAG
C of IES was to be considered in accordance with his original seniority which
led to his promotion to SAG w.e.f. 7.3.1997, the DPC included him in the
eligibility list as per his original seniority in SAG.
{
19. As against 6 number of vacancies, his position, despite the above
dispensation was at serial number 11 and hence his name did not figure in
D the final recommended list.

20. A review DPC was held on 15.2.2000 owing to emergence of the fact
that there were only five vacancies instead of six considered earlier because r

of abolition of one post on the recommendations of the Expenditure Reforms
Commission.
_.\.
Respondent was still considered as per the directions of the y
E Tribunal dated 23.10.2001 in OA 1124/2000. Here also being at serial number
11, he could not be recommended for promotion. In a subsequent DPC for the
vacancy year 2002-03, for one vacancy the senior to the respondent who
fulfilled the benchmark was recommended.

21. The Delhi High Court by order dated 14.8.2002 in Civil Writ Petition
F no.888/89 set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 7.1.1999 which struck
down retrospective amendment of Rule 13 of IES Rules and remanded the
matter to the Tribunal.
..,
~
22. The CWP 1375/2002 filed earlier by appellant no.1 against Tnbunal's
Order dated 23.10.2001 was dismissed by the High Court by order dated
G
30.9.2002. All the DPCs to consider promotions to HAG held prior to this
order had considered respondent's case in accordance with the orders of
Tribunal dated 23.10.2001. The DPC proceedings were, therefore, consistent
with the Tribunal and High Court's orders.
j--

H 23. Review Petition (CPNo. 217/02) filed by the respondent was dismissed
U.0.1 v. P.M. RANGASAMI [PASA YAT, J.] 699

;_ by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal by order dated 23.10.2002 holding that A
the respondent has been considered by the department and not found fit for
promotion and that no junior to the respondent had been promoted. The
Tribunal noted that since the case of respondent was considered by the
Government for promotion in HAG, there was no wilful disobedience on their
part.
B
24. Review petition was filed by the respondent in OA No.1124 of 2000
before the Principal Bench of Tribunal on 15.11.2002.

... 25. On 15.1.2003, respondent resigned from service. Review petition
>-- filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 12.5.2003
holding that review was not maintainable. c
26. On 2.9.2003, the respondent filed OA No.1002/03 before the Tribunal,
Chennai Bench. By this Court's order dated 26.9.2003, order of the High Court
dated 14.8.2002 was stayed thus resorting the judgment of the Tribunal dated
7.1.99 striking down the retrospective reservation in promotion. On 30.4.2004,
D
Tribunal Chennai Bench directed the appellant to consider respondent for

, HAG with reference to his original seniority in Grade-HI i.e. w.e.f. 7.5.2002, the
date on which his alleged juniors in Grade-III of the service were promoted
to HAG. On 7.8.2004 Government filed review application RA 30/2004 in OA
-y 1002/2003 before the Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
E
27. On 30.9.2004, draft seniority list was issued in implementation of
decision of Tribunal, Chennai Bench. Review petition filed by the appellant
is disposed of on 21.12.2004. However, the Tribunal recorded the fact that the
order of the Tribunal in OA No. I 124/00 and 1002/03 had been implemented
by issuance of a seniority list.
F
28. On 26.4.2005, CP 21/05 was filed by the respondent. By order dated
-.,..
21.9 .2005, Tribunal directed that review DPC is to be held and its decision is
y to be implemented.

29. Final seniority list was issued by the Department on 25.10.2005
purportedly on the basis of this Court's order in case relating to the validity G
or otherwise of retrospective application of Rule 13 of JES Rules.

30. On 14.12.2005, Review DPC through special request to UPSC was
held as per the directions of Tribunal, Chennai Bench's order dated 2 I .9.2005.
The Government issued a detailed speaking order on 30. 12.2005 dealing with
H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A the representation of the respondent and infonning him that his case has been )._
considered in terms of the order of the Tribunal and that upon such
consideration he has not been recommended for promotion to HAG. On
3.5.2006, the impugned order was passed by Tribunal holding the petitioner
in contempt.

B 31. There is no dispute that there was no challenge to the seniority list
prior to 1997. Challenge to the change of date was not vis-a-vis Trehan and
Nampoorthiry. So far as the entry to Grade IV is concerned, the applicant was
junior to Trehan and Nampoorthiry. The challenge in the OA was not in
respect of Trehan and Nampoorthiry. As noted, there was no grievance prior ..
..<(
to 7.3 .1997. It is to be noted that there was no direction for promotion and
c only for consideration. Therefore, the question of any automatic promotion
does not arise. The Tribunal never held that the respondent was entitled to
promotion notwithstanding losing seniority. It appears from the record that
despite losing seniority respondent was considered for promotion to HAG on
the basis of Tribunal's order.
D
32. The parameters to be considered while deciding as to whether
contempt has been committed has been considered by this Court in several
cases. For example Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., JT
(2004) 8 SC 165, Director of Education, Uttaranchal and Ors. v. Ved Prakash
Joshi and Ors., JT (2005) 6 SC 276, Dilip Mitra v. Swadesh Chandra Bhadga,
E (2002) 6 Supreme 249, Chhoty Ram v. Urvashi Gulati and Anr., [2001] 7 SCC
530 and Suresh Chandra Poddar v. Dhani Ram and Ors., [2002] l SCC 766.

33. Above being the position, the Tribunal was not justified in holding
that contempt had been committed. If the respondent has any grievance, it
is open to him to assail the same in an appropriate proceeding.
F
34. The order passed by the Tribunal is clearly unsustainable and is set
~
aside. Appeal is allowed.
""(

B.B.B. Appeal allowed.