UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusSCHAN LAL SAYAL & ORS.

                         [2015] 1 S.C.R. 948


A                     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                                   v.
                    SCHAN LAL SAYAL & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 4389 of 2010)
                         JANUARY 21, 2015
B
        [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
               ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

         Service Law - Promotion - From the post of Junior
C Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer - Criteria for
    drawing the select list for promotion - Order of passing
    departmental qualifying examination or the relevant
    recruitment order of entry - This Court by order dated
    08.04.1986 held that order of passing departmental qualifying
D   examination should be the criteria for drawing the select list
    - Subsequently, this Court in *Madras Telephones Scheduled
    Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association case
    held that the order of recruitment/order of entry should be the
    criteria for promotion - Thereafter, in **Union of India v.
E   Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
    Social Welfare Association this Court held that the persons
    who had already got the benefit by virtue of the judgments in
    their favour, would not suffer and their promotion already made
    would not be interfered with - Reiteration of the said position
F   - Meanwhile pursuant to order dated 08.04.1986, claims of
    the respondents 1 to 511 along with thousands of similarly
    situated Junior Engineers dealt with by the appellant-institution
    - 17 Lists drawn and their seniority determined in the year
    1993 - Their rights upheld by the tribunal and by the
G   impugned orders of the various High Courts - However, in the
    year 2000, the appellant reversed the seniority of all those
    who were covered by the Lists drawn in the year 1993 -
    Different set of officers favoured with seniority and promotions
    - Tribunal interfering with the action of the appellant - Said

H                                 948
        UNION OF INDIA v. SCHAN LAL SAYAL                     949

order upheld by the High Courts - Interference with - Held:           A
Not called for - Appellant not justified in reversing the seniority
and subsequent promotions of all those who were covered by
the 17 Lists drawn in the year 1993 - Since several thousand
employees are involved and in order to balance the rights of
both the groups, an independent Expert Committee is                   8
constituted which would be headed by a retired Judge of the
High Court, with the assistance of a retired Member of the
Central Administrative Tribunal based on the principles laid
down in the various judgments.

     *Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes C
& Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association (1997) 10
SCC 226; **Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association 2000
(3) SCR 618: (2000) 9 SCC 71; Union of India v. Madras
Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Assn. 2006 (6) Suppl. D
SCR 694: (2006) 8 SCC 662; Promotee Telecom Engineers
Forum and Others v. D.S. Mathur, Secretary, Department of
Telecommunications 2008 (5) SCR 442: (2008) 11 SCC 579
- referred to.
                                                                      E
                       Case Law Reference:
     (1997) 10 sec 226             Referred to       Para 2, 3,
                                                     13, 14, 17
     2000 (3) SCR 618              Referred to       Para 3, 8,
                                                                      F
                                                     12, 13,14, 17
     2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 694 Referred to             Para 5, 6, 7,
                                                          14, 20
     2008 (5) SCR 442              Referred to       Para 6, 7,       G
                                                          14, 20
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4389 of 2010.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2008 of the              H
    950       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A   High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Writ Petition
    No. 13 of 2007.

                                WITH

    C. A. Nos. 5008, 8929-8945 of 2012, 6769, 9348 of 2013,
B   1454, 1657, 1456, 1457-1459, 1460-1462 & 1453 of 2015

         R. 0. Agrawala, Nidhesh Gupta, V. Giri, J. S. Attri, A. K.
    Sanghi, C. S. Rajan, Ambar Qamaruddin, Gaurang Kanth, Mohit
    Kumar Shah, Pawan Kumar, Eshita Baruah, Rajshekhar Rao,
c   Liz Mathew, Gauri Puri, Sanjay Ghosh, Gautam Narayan,
    Sabarish Subramanian, C. B. Gururaj (for Legion of Lawyers),
    Sunita Sharma, Rekha Pandey, Ajay Sharma, D. S. Mahra,
    Naresh Kaushik, Lalitha Kaushik, A. Raghunath, Rani Chhabra,
    Priyanka Sony, Gautam Narayan, Asmita Singh, Dr. Sushil
    Balwada, Rani Chhabra, Ms. Priyanka Sony, Manish Kumar,
0
    Amit Kumar, Rakesh K. Sharma, R. K. Kapoor, Rekha Giri,
    Anis Ahmed Khan for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E       FAKKIR MOHAMED
                   .            IBRAHIM KALIFULLA J. 1. . We
  shall deal with the judgment impugned in the Civil Appeal Nos.
  8929-8945 of 2012 for the purpose of referring to the facts as
  well as the date of judgments of this Court which were either
  followed or referred to or relied upon by the Tribunal as well as
F the Division Bench. Further, the issue involved in all connected
  appeals are also identical though some of the appeals have
  been preferred against the judgments of other High Courts
  namely, the High Courts of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and
  Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Rajasthan and Madhya
G Pradesh. There is a transfer petition seeking transfer of a Writ
  Petition pending before the High Court of Delhi to this Court
  wherein identical issue is stated to be involved.

        2. The core issue pertains to the rights of thousands of
    Junior Telecommunication Officers known as J.T.O. also called
H
       UNION OF INDIA v. SOHAN LAL SAYAL                     951
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

Junior Engineers to the next higher post of Sub- Divisional A
Engineer, also known as, Assistant Engineers and the criteria
to be applied namely, whether the order of passing a
departmental qualifying examination or the relevant recruitment
order/order of entry for the purpose of determining seniority inter
se. The issue was earlier dealt with by the Allahabad High Court B
which came to be considered by this Court and ultimately by a
judgment of this Court dated 8th April, 1986, it was held that
the order of passing departmental qualifying examination should
be the criteria for drawing the Select List for promotion.
Subsequently, by the judgment of this Court in Union of India c
v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
 Tribes Social Welfare Association - (1997) 10 SCC 226, this
Court held that the order of recruitment/order of entry should be
the criteria for promotion.

     3. By virtue of such diametrical opposite views expressed       D
by this Court in the judgment dated 8th April, 1986 and the one
reported in Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association -
(1997) 10 sec 226 which came to be delivered on 13th
February, 1997, a question arose as to which of the criteria has     E
to be uniformly applied for effecting the promotion from the post
of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer. In such a
situation, after the judgment of this Court reported in Union of
India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes Social Welfare Association - (1997) 10 SCC 226, an            F
interlocutory application was filed in this Court viz., IA No.2 of
1999. The said IA was disposed of along with Contempt
Petition (C) No.121 of 1999 and connected C.A. Nos. 6485-
86 of 1998 as well as IA Nos. 4 and 5 of 1999 in the said Civil
Appeals. The said detailed judgment came to be rendered on           G
26th April, 2000 reported in Union of India v. Madras
Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social
Welfare Association - (2000) 9 SCC 71 and it will be relevant
to refer to the said judgment in the forefront as that would form
the basis for our conclusion in this batch of cases.                 H
    952        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 1 S.C.R.

A       4. Relevant paras of the said judgment are extracted
    hereinbelow:-                             ·

          "17..................... In accordance with the prescribed
          procedure for preparation of eligibility list, notified by the
          Government on 28.6.1996, the Departmental Promotion
B
          Committee has to prepare separate lists for each year
          of recruitment in the feeder category. In other words, if in
          1958, the Departmental Promotion Committee has to
          prepare separate lists for each year of recruitment in the
          feeder category. In other words, if in 1958, the
c         Departmental Promotion Committee is recommending
          people for promotion to Class II, then all the eligible
          candidates who had passed the departmental
          examination and were recruited in the year 1951 and so
          on and so forth. Once, separate lists are prepared by the
D         Departmental Promotion Committee of the officers
          recruited indifferent recruitment years in the feeder
          category and the criterion for promotion being seniority-
          cum- fitness, then it would create no problem in promoting
          the officers concerned. As to the inter se position of the
E         officials belonging to the same year of recruitment in the
          feeder category, the procedure to be adopted has been
          indicted in para (999) of the memorandum dated
          28. 6. 1966. In this view of the matter, we are of the
          considered opinion that the judgment of this Court in Civil
F         Appeal No. 4339 of 1995 has rightly been decided in
          interpreting the relevant provisions of the Recruitment
          Rules read with the procedure prescribed under the
          memorandum dated 28.6.1966. We, however. make it
          clear that the persons who have already got the benefit
G         like Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan by virtue of the
          judgments in their favour, will not suffer and their
          promotion already made will not be affected by this
          judgment of ours.

          19 ........... We have also indicated that the promotions
H
         UNION OF INDIA v. SOHAN LAL SAYAL                    953
      [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

      already effected pursuant tot e judgment of the Allahabad        A
      High Court, which was upheld by this Court by dismissing
      the special leave petition filed by the Union of India, will
      nto be altered in any manner. This being the position and
      the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in favour of
      Parmanand Lal having attained finality, he having                B
      received the benefit of the said judgment and having
      been promoted, could not have been reverted because
      of some later judgments and directions given either the
      tribunals or by this Court."

                                               (emphasis added)
                                                                       c
     5. Having regard to the above referred two paragraphs set
out after considering the earlier judgment of this Court dated
8th April, 1986 and the one rendered on 13th February, 1997,
what emerged was that the persons who also got the benefit             D
at par with the appellants covered by the order of this Court
dated 8th April, 1986; namely, Paramanand Lal v. Brij Mohan;
by virtue of the judgments in their favour held not to be affected
and their promotions already made should not be interfered with.
The said position was again reiterated in IA No.16 in C.A.             E
No.4339 of 1995 dated 28.09.2006 reported as Union of India
v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Assn. - (2006)
8 sec 662. Paras 19 and 21 of the said judgment are relevant
for our purpose which read as under:
                                                                       F
              "19. 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 Court and approved by this Court, which           G
      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 affect their cases.                                    H
    954       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A                21. Having regard to the above observations and
          clarification we have no doubt that such of the applicants
          whose claim to seniority and consequent promotion on
          the basis of the principles laid down in the Allahabad
          High Court's judgment in Parmanand Lal Case have
B         been upheld or recognised by the Court or the Tribunal
          by judgment and order which have attained finality will
          not be adversely affected by the contrary view now taken
          in the judgment Madras Telephones. Since the rights of
          such applicants were determined in a duly constituted
c         proceeding, which determination has attained finality, a
          subsequent judgment of a court or Tribunal taking a
          contrary view will not adversely affect the applicants in
          whose cases the orders have attained finality. We order
          accordingly." (Emphasis added)
D      6. Subsequently, arising out of the said judgment reported
  in Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes
  & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association - (2006) 8
  SCC 662 a contempt proceeding was initiated in Contempt
  Petition (C) No.248 of 2007 in IA No. 16 in C.A No.4339 of
E 1995 in which an order came to be passed in the judgment
  reported in Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum and Others
  v.      D.S.      Mathur,     Secretary,       Department       of
  Telecommunications - (2008) 11 SCC 579. In para 21 of the
  said judgment the following direction has been issued:
F
               "21. We, therefore, direct that the respondents shall
       rearrange the seniority in terms of the principles laid down
       in Parmanand Lal 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
G
       in the entry year, more particularly S/Shri Belani, Biradar
        and Kulkarni shall not be put over and above the
       petitioners herein. This shall be done within 8 weeks from
        the date of this judgment."

H         7. It must be stated that whatever benefit granted pursuant
      UNION OF INDIA v. SCHAN LAL SAYAL                  955
   [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
                                                             •,
to the above judgment namely Union of. India v. Madras A
Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social
Welfare Association - (2006) 8 SCC 662 and Promotee
Telecom Engineers Forum and Others v. D.S. Mathur,
Secretary, Department of Telecommunications - (2008) 11
sec 579 can be sufficiently safeguarded while passing orders B
ultimately in this batch of cases.

     8. As far as the present challenge made in these appeals
are concerned, it would suffice for us to confine to the principle
clearly set out in the above referred to extracted paras 17 and C
19 of the judgment reported in Union of India v. Madras
Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social
Welfare Association - (2000) 9 SCC 71.

     9. Keeping the above-said principles in mind, when we
examine the judgment in these main appeals what is required D
to be noted is the order of the Tribunal dated 28th February,
1992 of the Punjab Bench of the Central Administrative
Tribunal. Subsequent to the confirmation of the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court by the order of the Supreme Court dated
8th April, 1986, the private respondents herein namely, E
respondent Nos. 1 to 512 approached the Tribunal seeking for
extension of the very same benefit which was conferred on
similarly situated persons covered by the order of this Court .
dated 8th April, 1986. When the Tribunal was dealing with their
claims, the appellants herein filed an Undertaking dated 27th F
February, 1992 which was as under:-

          " The anomaly in seniority of TES Group B has
    arisen of (as?) a consequence of implementation of the
    decision of CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi dated
    07.06.1991 .... in respect of the petitions in the said OAs G
    which in other words is implementation of the said
    decision in respect of limited No. of TES Group B
    Officers who have gone to Hon'ble Tribunal instead of its
    implementation to the entire order of TES Group B." and
                                                                  H
    956        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2015] 1 S.C.R.


A         that therefore, in view of the "Supreme Court decision
          upholding the decision of Principal Bench, the proposal
          revise the seniority of entire TES Group B officers as per
          para 206 of P& T Manual Vol. IV is under consideration
          of the Deptt. Since the cadre of TEA, Group B exceeds
8          10000, the entire exercise of collectinglcompifingl
          organisation the information is likely to take at least six
          months time. The exercise has already been initiated.
           The names of petitions would be accordingly placed, in
          TES, Group B seniority list and thereafter would be
c         considered for further promotion according to revised list
          in accordance with rules, availability of vacancies and on
          the basis of recommendations of DPC."

       10. By virtue of the said specific categoric stand taken by
  the Department of Telecommunication viz., the predecessor of
D the appellant, the Tribunal passed its order dated 28th February,
  1992 holding as under:-

                 "2. It is clear from what we have extracted above that
          the respondents have taken a firm decision to give effect
E         to the principle laid down by the decision of the Tribunal
          which decision stands affirmed by the Supreme Court. by
          reviewing the promotions of everyone who is similarly
          situated and not confining it only to those who
          approached the court for relief. They have conceded that
F         they made a mistake in limiting their attention in the
          matter of giving deemed dates of promotion only to those
          who obtained orders from the Tribunal and ignoring the
          cses of others similarly situated only because they had
          not secured similar orders from the Tribunal. Now they
          hve realized that once the principle has been laid down
G
          by the Tribunal which is of general application. it is their
          duty tomake a comprehensive review in respect of
          everyone who is similarly situated whether all of them
          have obtained orders from the Tribunal or not. The
          attitude now taken which is reflected in what we have
H
       UNION OF INDIA v. SCHAN LAL SAYAL                   957
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

    extracted above is correct. That is the only way of A
    satisfactorily giving effect to the principle laid down by the
    Tribunal in various cases. including those enforcement
    of which has been sought in these contempt of court
    petitions. The respondents have stated that though steps
    have been initiated having regard to the fact that they B
    have to review the cases fo nearlv ten thousand persons.
    the exercise is likelv to take about six months' time. They
    have further stated that after the revised seniority list is
    prepared. according of further promotion on the basis of
    the revised seniority list and following the relevant rules c
    would be made on the basis of the recommendations of
    the DPC.

          As right steps have now been taken. there should
    not be any need for other similarly situated to rush to the
    Tribunal for grant of relief as they would all get relief by   D
    application of the same principle. whether or not they
    approached the Tribunal and secured orders in their
    favour...

    4. . ... A copy of this order be also circulated to other      E
    courts in the principal bench dealing with other matters
    in which similar relief is claimed on the original
    side. "[emphasis added.]

    11. Thus, the claims of the private respondents 1 to 511
                                                                   F
herein along with thousands of similarly situated Junior
Engineers came to be dealt with by the appellant and it is
common ground that their seniority was determined in the year
1993, which was reflected in different lists numbering 17
covering several thousands of employees.
                                                                   G
     12. While that be so, after the order of this Court passed
in IA No. 2 of 1999 reported in Union of India v. Madras
Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social
Welfare Association - (2000) 9 sec 71, for reasons best
                                                                   H
    958      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015) 1 S.C.R.


A known to the Department, the appellant took certain steps by
  which whatever seniority which was determined in the year
  1993 and covered by the 17 lists were stated to have been
  reversed and a different set of officers were favoured with
  seniority and promotions. When such a step was taken at the
B instance of the appellant, challenges were made before the
  Tribunal by those who were aggrieved and who were part of
  the List containing 17 in number drawn in the year 1993. While
  dealing with their grievances, the Tribunal by its order dated
  26th May, 2009 passed in T.A. No. 47/PB/09, interfered with
C the subsequent action of the appellant in having re-determined
  the Seniority of the members in the 17 Lists drawn in the year
  1993. The appellant approached the Punjab and Haryana High
  Court by way of a writ petition in which the present impugned
  order came to be passed on 25th November, 2011 holding that
o the view taken by the Tribunal was perfectly justified and there
  is no scope for interference. Aggrieved by the said decision
  of the High Court the B.S.N.L. is before us.

          13. We heard learned senior counsel Mr. R.D. Agarwala,
    for B.S.N.L., Mr. V. Giri, learned senior Counsel for the
E   Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta,
    learned senior counsel for the private respondents and after
    having perused the impugned judgment, we are also convinced
    that the ultimate conclusion drawn by the Tribunal as confirmed
    by the Division Bench does not call for interference. We are
F   convinced that after specific directions contained in paragraphs
    17 and 19 of the Union of India v. Madras Telephones
    Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare
    Association - (2000) 9 SCC 71, when the rights of the private
    respondents herein got crystallised based on the specific stand
G   of the appellant taken in its undertaking dated 27th February,
    1992 and the subsequent 17 Seniority Lists drawn by it, the
    appellant was wholly unjustified in having taken a 'U'-turn in the
    year 2000 and reverse the seniority of all those who were
    covered by those 17 Lists. When in the judgment dated 26th
H   April, 2000 of this Court reported in Union of India v. Madras
       UNION OF INDIA v. SCHAN LAL SAYAL                    959
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social               A
Welfare Association - (2000) 9 SCC 71 made a categoric and
clear pronouncement as to how the latter principle laid down
in the judgment of Union of India v. Madras Telephones
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare
Association - (1997) 10 SCC 226 should prevail without              B
affecting the rights of those whose cases were already
determined and reached a finality based on the orders of the
Courts, the appellant ought not to have meddled with their
seniority and subsequent promotions and the benefits granted
on that basis in respect of those officers covered by the List of   C
 17 drawn in the year 1993. In the light of our above conclusion,
there is no scope to interfere with the judgment impugned in
these appeals.

      14. Even after holding so, we find that the matter does not
                                                                    0
rest there. As referred to earlier, subsequent to the judgments
of this Court which clarified the position while applying the
judgment in Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association -
(1997) 10 sec 226, namely, the one reported in Union of India
v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled                   E
 Tribes Social Welfare Association - (2000) 9 SCC 71 there
were two other judgments with reference to the very same issue
which were reported in Union of India v. Madras Telephone
 SC & ST Social Welfare Assn. - (2006) 8 SCC 662 and
Promotee Tel&com Engineers Forum and Others v. D.S.                 F
 Mathur, Secretary, Department of Telecommunications -
(2008) 11 SCC 579. In fact the rights of the applicants at the
 instance of the applicants in IA 16 in CA No. 4339 of 1995 were
considered in the judgment reported in Union of India v.
 Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Assn. - (2006) 8           G
 SCC 662. Having got the benefit under the said order a
 contempt petition came to be filed at their instance which came
to be disposed of as per the judgment reported in Promotee
 Telecom Engineers Forum and Others v. D.S. Mathur,
 Secretary, Department of Telecommunications - (2008) 11            H
    960        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A   sec 579.
        15. While dealing with their stand it was clearly directed
    as under in paragraph 21.

                 "We, therefore, direct that the respondents shall
B         rearrange the seniority in terms of the principles laid down
          in Parmanand Lal case restoring their earlier position
          and shall not put any employee over and above the
          present petitions on the basis of the seniority in service
          in the entry year, more particular S/Shri Belani, Biradar
c         and Kulkarni shall not be put over and above the
          petitioners herein. This shall be done within 8 weeks from
          the date of this judgment. n

        16. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for those
0   who were aggrieved by the impugned judgment submitted that
    any orders passed herein should not affect their rights.

       17. Having noted the above features, we wish to refer to
  the submissions of Mr. Agarwala, learned senior counsel
  appearing for the B.S.N.L. who submitted that after the reversal
E of the 17 Seniority Lists drawn in the year 1993, which took
  place in the year 2000, a different course was adopted applying
  the principle laid down in the judgment reported in Union of India
  v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
  Tribes Social Welfare Association - (1997) 10 SCC 226 and
F that such promotions effected remains in force for the past
  nearly 15 years covering not less than 10,000 employees.

        18. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submitted that even
  if the present impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana
G High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal dated 26th May,
  2009 is to be implemented, the same would have far reaching
  consequences affecting the rights of not less than 8000
  employees who were covered by the 17 lists drawn in the year
  1993 on the one side and nearly about 10,000 employees who
H were given the benefit of promotions subsequent to the order
       UNION OF INDIA v. SOHAN LAL SAYAL                  961
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

of Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes           A
& Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association - (2000) 9
sec 11.
      19. On this, we heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior
counsel for the private respondents and Mr. V. Giri, counsel      8
appearing for the Telecom Forum. We are of the considered
opinion that in the interest of the institution namely, the
appellants as well as the large number of employees whose
grievances are to be sufficiently examined, considered and
safeguarded with minimum disturbance in the matter of fixing      C
their seniority as well as promotions already granted in their
favour or to be restored as per this judgment, a detailed
consideration of the respective stand requires to be made.
Since such an exercise would involve consideration of very
many factors involving several thousand employees and in          D
order to balance the rights of both the groups, we feel it
appropriate to entrust the said exercise to be carried out by
an independent Expert Committee preferably to be headed by
a retired Judge of the High Court, with the assistance of a
retired Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal based on
the principles laid down in the various judgments. The learned    E
counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents also
submitted that such a course would amicably resolve the crisis.

     20. We, therefore, constitute an Expert Committee
consisting of Hon'ble Shri Justice K. Ramamoorthy, Retired        F
Judge of the High Court of Madras, residing at 'Prashant' D-
17, Greater Kailash Enclave-I, New Delhi - 110 048 who will
be the Chairman and Mr. D.P. Sharma, Former Secretary in
the Ministry of Law and Justice and Former Vice Chairman,
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi     G
shall be the Member. The appellant-Department is directed to
provide all necessary details as regards the officers/employees
whose names were found in the 17 Lists drawn in the year
1993 whose rights have been upheld by the Tribunal and
affirmed by the impugned orders of the various High Courts,       H
as well as, the list of those officers who came to be
    962       SUPREME COURT "REPORTS               [2015) 1 S.C.R.


A   subsequently dealt with and whose seniority was fixed after
    2000 i.e. after reversing the 17 Seniority Lists of 1993 along
    with all relevant Rules, Regulations and other materials which
    the Expert Committee wish to call for, for their consideration.
    We only direct the Expert Committee to ensure that the rights
B   which have been crystallised in favour of the applicants in IA ·
    NO. 16 in CA No. 4339 of 1992 reported in the judgment of
    Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare
    Assn. - (2006) 8 sec 662 as well as by the judgment in the
    Contempt Petition No.248 of 2007 reported in Promotee
c Telecom Engineers Forum and Others v. D.S. Mathur,
    Secretary, Department of Telecommunications - (2008) 11
    sec 579, shall not in any way infringed while suggesting the
    way out for balancing the rights of the two groups of employees
    referred to above based on the principles laid down in this
    judgment.
0
         21. We only direct that let both the groups be represented
    by a representative body of not more than two along with their
    lawyers on either sides in order to ensure that the Expert
    Committee is able to deal with the issue without much
E   protraction and confusion apart from the representation of
    lawyers on behalf of the appellants. It will be appreciated if the
    Expert Committee carries out the exercise and submit its
    Report to this Court within a period of six months.

F     22. We leave it open to the Chairman of the Expert
  Committee to determine the remuneration for himself, the other
  member and the junior counsel which shall be paid by the
  appellant B.S.N.L. It is also left to the Chairman to appoint one
  or two junior counsel of his choice to render necessary
G assistance for holding the proceedings as well as for the
  preparation of the Report. It is also left to the Chairman of the
  Expert Committee to decide the venue for their hearing. It is
  needless to state that B.S.N.L. should pay all their travel and
  hospitality and other expenses of the Members of the Expert
  Committee as well as their junior counsel and other assistants.
H
         UNION OF INDIA v. SOHAN LAL SAYAL                     963
      [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)
      23. lntervenors who are stated to be applicants in IA No.2      A
 in SLP(C) NO. 5145 of 2012 are given liberty to represent
 before the Expert Committee and the Expert Committee take
 their stand also into account and their grievances and if it
 requires to be dealt with and any relief to be granted in their
 favour the same may be set out or else state the grounds for         B
 rejection. We leave it open to the Expert Committee to seek
 for any further directions from this Court if need be.

     24. IA Nos.5,6 and 7 in CA No. 1657 of 2015 @ SLP(C)
 No. 5145 of 2012 are allowed. Cause title be amended
 accordingly.                                                         C

      25. Leave granted in all the petitions for special leave.

      26. The appeals are disposed of as indicated above but
  the matters shall be listed immediately after six months on         0
· receipt of the Report from the Expert Committee solely for the
  purpose of passing appropriate orders based on the Report.
 Nidhi Jain                                    Appeals disposed of.