Union of India v. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai

The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRA The Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRU W. P. Nos. 9619 and 9620 of 1998 W.M.P. Nos. 14716 and 14718 of 1998 and 19552 of 1998

1. Union of India Rep. by Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Urban Development Nirman Bhawan New Delhi

2. The Director General of Works Central Public Works Department Nirman Bhawan New Delhi ... Petitioners in both W.Ps. vs.

Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai  104 R1 in both W.Ps.

A.S. Anandram 3. B.W. Khubuchandani 4. M.M.K. Swamy 5. N. Veerappan

The Union Public Service Commission rep. by its Secretary Dholpur House Shahjahan Road New Delhi 7. P.C. Jain 8. Jagat Singh 9. B.K. Kumar 10. R.K. Nimbekar 11. A.L. Gupta 12. R.L. Gupta 13. S.M. Das Gupta 14. M.S. Venkataratnam 15. M.V. Sarma 16. D.D. Bhandari 17. N.C. Dutta Gupta

P.C. Ghosh 19. Viswanath Singh 20. D.R. Khanna 21. E.K. Viswanathan 22. P.A. Chawla 23. Y.P.D. Kapoor 24. S.P. Wadhera 25. Hemraj Gupta 26. M.S. Dingra 27. T.C. Roy 28. R.K. Malhotra 29. M.R. Seth 30. R. Saminathan 31. D.P. Bhardwaj 32. K.N. Gupta 33. D.S. Mukherjee 34. J.M. Hora 35. I.S. Kochar 36. P.D. Chaudhary 37. N.M. Assudani 38. D.D. Passi 39. Mittar Jain 40. V. Bhuliyan 41. G.P. Minnas 42. D.K. Dua 43. M.K. Garg 44. N.N. Abrol 45. C.S. Mudhar 46. R.C. Talwar 47. G.P. Satsangi 48. R.S. Dahia 49. K.C. Malhotra 50. L.W. Seth 51. J.C. Malhotra ..RR2 to 51 in W.P. No. 9619/98

2. V.S.Thirunavukkarasu 3. S. Ramamurthy 4. V.E.S. Iyer 5. D. Sundararajan 6. M.K. Shanthamurthy 7. R. Balasubramaniam 8. C. Sivanandam 9. The Union Public Service Commission Rep.by its Secretary Dholpur House Shahjahan Road New Delhi 10. D.R. Chopra 11. B.M. Gupta I 12. Krishnan Kumar 13. S.C. Jain I

B.G. Gupta 15. S.R. Joshi 16. R.D. Bhatia 17. M.C. Mehra 18. K.C. Chopra 19. Mohinder Narain 20. R.K. Aggarwal 21. S.P. Gupta 22. Joginderpal 23. I.S. Gupta I 24. K.S. Narayanaswamy 25. Malkit Singh 26. A.N. Mathur 27. S.S. Mandal 28. K.S. Sundararajan 29. P.N. Rao 30. Radhey Lal 31. A.N. Majumdar 32. R.S. Paul 33. B.G. Chowdhary 34. R.C. Lodh 35. V. Krishnani 36. Bhagwan Das 37. H.K. Sachideva 38. K.C. Charimal 39. Harsaran Singh 40. K.K. Barkaki 41. M.M. Rai Chowdhry 42. B.B. Roy 43. P.R. Garg 44. B.D. Raigade 45. N. Venkateswaralu 46. C.B. Keswani 47. G.D. Chugh 48. P.C. sharma 49. B.G. Moorjani 50. S.M. Alton 51. Kulwant Singh 52. D.R. Bhatia 53. D. Patwari 54. C.S. Moorthy 55. K.L. Mahajan 56. S. Doraiswamy 57. M.M.L. Mishra 58. O.P. Sharma 59. R.J. Bhayya 60. Jitendranath 61. A.S. Virdi 62. G.S. Giani 63. K.M. Srinivasan 64. G.P. Mathur

N.D. Natghani 66. H.D. Sood 67. G.C. Shewaramani 68. G.N. Bajaj 69. S.P. Gupta II 70. Karan Singh 71. H.L. Jatau 72. V.M. Murthy 73. Moolchand 74. S.C. Veeranna 75. M.N. Handa 76. S.D. Gera 77. S.C. Singhal 78. T.K. Thomas 79. Satya Prakash 80. P.M. Jain 81. S.P. Sharma 82. M.M. Gupta 83. D.R. Nanda 84. R.K. Kapoor 85. P.G. Debnath 86. D.C. Aggarwal 87. R.M. Dahiya ... RR2  87 in W.P. No. 9620/98 Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Tribunal dated 04.9.1997 in O.A. Nos. 295 of 1995 and 493 of 1995 respectively insofar as they relate the seniority list of Executive Engineers (Civil) dated 19.01.1994, 20.5.1994, 20.10.1994 and Executive Engineers (Elect) dated 12.01.1994 and 25.11.1994. For Petitioners : Mr. V.T. Gopalan, ASG for Mr.Ravindranath For Respondents : Mr. Karthick Rajan COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K. CHANDRU, J.) Heard the arguments of Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for Mr. Ravindranath, learned counsel representing the petitioners and Mr. Karthick Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the records.

2. Aggrieved by the common order dated 04.9.1997 made in O.A. Nos. 295 of 1995 and 493 of 1995 by the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'CAT'], the Union of India and the Director General of Works, Central Public Works Department have filed the two writ petitions.

The contesting respondents lead by A.S. Anandram and others filed O.A. No. 295 of 1995 and V.S. Thirunavukkarasu and others filed O.A. No. 493 of 1995. In both the Original Applications, the challenge was made to the seniority lists of Executive Engineers issued on 12.01.1994 and 25.11.1994 in the case of Electrical Wing and the seniority lists dated 19.01.1994, 20.5.1994 and

20.10.1994 in the case of Civil Engineering Wing and also O.Ms. Dated 04.01.1997 and 05.02.1997 were also challenged. The contesting respondents also sought for preparation of respective seniority lists by excluding the Diploma holder Assistant Engineers for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers in the Central Public Works Department by giving retrospective effect from 30.10.1972.

Before the CAT, a common reply statement dated 22.12.1995 was filed by the petitioners and in that, an objection was taken by stating that the contesting respondents were raking up an issue, which was settled before 1972 and their action is barred by limitation. It was also stated that no records prior to the year 1972 are available with the petitioners and the promotion of Diploma holder Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers were continuing from the very beginning. A detailed analysis of the settled position was listed out in the reply statement dated 20.12.1995.

Taking cue from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5363 of 1990 [J.N. Goesl and others v. Union of India and others], which granted liberty to aggrieved persons over the promotion of any of the Diploma holder Assistant Engineers to the cadre of Executive Engineers after filing O.A. No. 704 of 1988 and prior to coming into force of 1996 Rules, to agitate the said grievance in the competent forum, the CAT held that since the seniority list was published for the first time in the year 1994, the Original Applicants can be allowed to be agitated. It was also held that the respondents should be directed to review adhoc promotions made already prior to 1996 amendment to the Rules. The CAT also held that in view of the spate of litigations over the period, 1994 seniority list should be quashed and the matter should be sent for reconsideration in the light of the order dated 14.01.1967 passed by the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, the seniority list was quashed.

6. When the writ petitions were filed, interim order was granted by this Court on 14.7.1998 and the stay is still in operation. We are of the opinion that the CAT was wrong in reading into the judgment rendered in Goel's case (cited supra), more than what has been stated therein. The judgment of the Supreme Court confined to promotion made to the Grade of Executive Engineer after filing of O.A. No. 704 of 1988 before the Tribunal. Thus, the regular promotions made prior to 1988 are outside the scope of the judgment of the Supreme Court. The CAT, without reference to the scope of the Supreme Court's judgment, had set aside several seniority lists.

The seniority list of Executive Engineer (Civil) was issued on 19.01.1994 and was finalised on 20.5.1994 after review of regular panels made upto 1971 in respect of the Executive Engineers promoted from the Assistant Engineers stream. The aforesaid review was done by the petitioners in compliance with the directions of the order of the CAT dated 30.12.1992. The seniority list of Executive Engineer (Electrical) issued on 12.9.1994 was based upon a review of DPC panel up to the year 1971 is outside the scope of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Goel's case. Similarly, the seniority list of Executive Engineer (Civil) dated 20.10.1994 and Executive Engineer (Electrical) dated 25.11.1994 were issued after holding year wise DPC in 1994 for vacancies pertaining to the period 28.8.1980 to 31.3.1994 in respect of Executive Engineer (Civil) and 24.10.1977 to 31.3.1994 in respect of Executive Engineer (Electrical). The Department also initiated action to review and had referred the matter to the Union Public Service Commission for the same.

The CAT failed to take note of these circumstances and had set aside the entire seniority list of Executive Engineers. We do not think that the Tribunal was correct in reopening the entire issue all over again without there being any justification either from the orders of the Supreme Court in Goel's case or from any other new cause of action. It is not as if the Supreme Court has given a complete go by to the limitation prescribed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1995 to reopen all the past issues.

The impact of the CAT's order, if allowed to be implemented, will create a chaos and will unsettle the settled position. The cause of action of the contesting respondents never arose after the orders of the Supreme Court but long prior to the orders passed by the Supreme Court and they are also guilty of laches and delay.

In that view of the matter, both the writ petitions will stand allowed. The common order dated 04.9.1997 passed by the CAT in O.A. Nos. 295 of 1995 and 493 of 1995 will stand set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. To Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai 104