, .

/- -, /- "-\
\r- / / \ i
.- S1r5,r,311'' i..o'_rrt ri-,:',:.-, f:rl1 Tert c1 cD-'lCf'1 , Ccp'"right'l' 1969-2014, ERC Publrshinq Pvt Lt0
.

-\) \ Pa;ir I iile:,rla/, ll:vemtler2'-',2014

-,,r,,,'1,
\>
\
()f.lLlf'JE
--./ "' '|q
F I'hrs p:i)Llrr{ t > t:i:lrlLr.l:1 i(r l'1,ls, X.entfl ii llss'icl,ltes Nerv Delht
TruePrirrt'* $ource: Suprerne Court (:ases
I-ruePrint'"

it.22 S L'I)RI. N'fI, COUR'I' CI.S J:$

I 1994 Supp (2) SCC
I{igh Courft. Thc appcllartt shall bc crltitlcd l( itsi c()sts which we quarlLify as
Rs 10,000

1994 S,tpp (2) Suprelne

Court 'Caises222
(linrclt<i. Kut-i)lP SltvcH AND YoGIlsl{\vAR Dnvnl, JJ.)
'tE LIT.CO lvl \4 U N l(-l,A'f O N IING I N t:ilR IN G S ll}{\/ icl Ll
I

A.SSOCIA-IION ( TNDIA) AII.II) ANO'I'HE,}{ Aprpre llartts;

Versus
I.,D'IION OI-- l.NDtr\ AND A.NO'I'l-tlilt Resportdcrtts.

SLP (C) Irirr. 16698 of l9()2t rr,ith Civil Appeal N,os, 1814, 1813-13-A, 1816-
36, lfi5j -7,4 arcl2900 ()l' lt99:1, SLP (Cl) Nt's. 1'+575-84 and 15984-8ji of
1992. dec:idi:d ort May l'..\,1994
A.. Serviii:e ll,au; -- I)r.rrnotion Promotion to'felegraph Engineering Service
Group B -- Ifasis of --,[r. b,ngine,ers' - entitlement 10 ,such promotion on thrl basis of
the t,e'ar ol' p:rssing the qualilif ing dlcpartmental e:<amination under Para 20tf of P&T
Manural and not o r the basis of seniority, as ulrhekl in .lunior Telec<lm Officers'
F-onrrn case, reilerirtxl * t'&'t' Nlanual, Vol. IV, Ptt.ra 206 (Paras; 1 and 6)
.lrnior'l'€lt?Conr O'flicer:; Ft)runtt.','. L'n'trtrt o-f Inditt l9i)3 lsupp (4) SCC 693: 1994 SCC
(l-&S) 3ti6: ( I99.1i .16 ,\l'(l 3fi7, jitllow'ed
Potnailan(l lttl artd llri,i I{ohan y,. (Jnion of India \Vnt Pctition Nos. 2739 artdt 2652 of d
1 98 I , rlccided o r' .10-2 [98-5, reftt rred to

[:t. Servic:e [,aw l,ay --Arrtsrs of pay Itighrt t<t llffect of enorntity of the
-.
nunrber of benefiici:tries and lcngth of reler':tnt - -
period Where cla.inrs for
retro$pectirc pronrotion. tlcncfiting:r !crl'lar1;e nr.rmber of pcmons (nrorc than
10,00d in thirs case) ,werc, al'tcr sevcral 1'ears (at:oul forrr y"ears in this case), found
'fritrunal rightly dcclined ba,ck $'ages
,justified, ,helcl, thc: (lentral Adrninistrative
except r,r.e.f. the daLtc of actuall.r' w,lrklng on the highcr []ost Rack wags
- (Parar;5 and 8)
Pglrtrtt llttnrkr,ishnut'ah ,. L.'nktrt ol Intlitt. r1989) 2 SllC 541 : 19119 SCC (1 ,!:S) 375 :

r'1989'r 10 ,\'fC .]'i'Ei : .198'J) I

Sicrlc lt3t), /bt'lr.tv'et.'
(.|rion ri [,,tdiu v. L.['. .lunktrutrt,,:n, ilg,9lr4:icc 0t/ , l!;93 scc (t-&s) 387 tit993) 23
r\l'(l .12 l. tl i.r tirn uis ht'd
H-M/1 j 1()6/5LA
Arii'ocatcs w'ho irppi:ltred in tltis casi: :

Aitat'Ahr:ncd, A-lclitionai liolrcitor (icncral, V,(. M;rhajan, N{s K. Anlrcshwan, I'.['.

ltao, Go.uindallukhcty r,rnd (l !i. \/aidvanathan,l'ienior Advocates (Ms Anill Katiyar,
I(. Srr.'anrv, T.'u'. Ratnant, lvls C K. Suchanta, I{zlrcsh Kaushik, lvls Lalitha. Kaushik,
K.V. IvlchzLn, (i.
I'ral, lvls, Ilinu'lantta, A.(.,Sikri, Ms Madhu SikrL and Ms
lr{ccnaks;hi Ar<lriL, Aclvocate s, u'Ltit thcrn) lirr ti'rc appcr.l'tng panie s.
r-/
Thc Judgrltont of the Court \\,iN delivered by
'focnsnwAR DAy.Ar,,, J.--- 'Ihis Order will ctrispose of above-said 5ti matters.
I{owel'er, u/e ar€) laking lhc l'a,r[s fronl Spet:ia-l l-eave Petition No. 16698 of
19912:. This Petition is dircctccl agairrst the judgrnerlt dated 29-6-i992 prassed by
the Cenu:a[ AdrriirrrisLr-ative '['ribun;al, Principal I-1ench, New Delhi irr Review
Appl.icarion No. 195 of l9t)2 in rOA No, 26ti7 of 1991. This decision was

F'rom rhe Judgm,:nl ancl Clrr1er darcil 29-6-1992 of the Lcntral Adminisrradvc ]'rLbunal, New
Illelhi rn llevi,cw 1\pprlication No. l9rli of 1992 in O.A l'lc.2667 of 1991
/ -" r' *-, a- ."''
Surrreirr: C9urt,-.sr:i Full Iext,:1{-D RC,M, Copyright O 1969 :l l1'1 , EUC Publrshrng Pvt. Lt:i
, :\' ,- -uesrlay, N()vililber 2i;,20L4
i--. I ;.
'u
t .l
Par;
'^-/">.-l ^ -.-/*-
!- ," -,' /

Of.lLlf\l E '- Th s prr.:.duci rs; lcerrced to M/s. flartfr &,t\ssociates, New Delhi
- TruePrint'" source : Supreme Crrunt Cases
TruePrint

ltrt.[if:Ot\4lv{L.TNICA'IION ENCC. SERV]ICI ASSN. v. UNION OF lNlLDiA (Dayal, J.) 223

rend€:rre.d hy ttre Prinrr:ipal Bench ovol & conflict of decision on two basic issues
which ;trose frlr cons;rderation, nan'rel)'* (l) whether the applicants and p€rsons
sirnila.r to thern are entirled to prornrltionr from the grade ol'Jr. Engineers to the
nexr higher grade in the Telegraph llngineering Service Group B (Assistant
Errgineers and equivalenr posr) on the basis of the year of passing the qualifying
Departmental Examination errvisagt,:d in para 206 of the lr\&T Manual and not
on the basis of their re:ipective s€:niority'as had been adollted and followed b1'
thr: respond€rnts; aflLd Q) whether ir:r the facts and circr.rmstances, they are
entrtle<i to ref,ixation of inter se seniorit)'on the said basis a,nd promotions with
ret.rospective effcct rogether with back ,wages. After consi<lering the judgment
of the High Clourt l,.Pnrmanand Lal and Bril' Mohan v. Union of
o: ,A,llahabad
Itu:liat) anrl rJecisirrns cf
various Benr:hes of the Tribunal which followed the
abovr:-:said ju(lgntent of the A.llahi.ibrlcl High Court, the Trib,unaI noticed that the
Allahabad Hi1i1h {Jrcurt and the various Benches of the Tribunal have concluded
thiit the applii.:ants are i:ntitle,C to 1:r,tr"notion, refixation of inter se seniority and
consequential benefi,t.s :rs claimed b)' rlnem and have decidr:cl the above-said two
rss;ues in tiheir fav,cur. 'fhe Triburral further noticed that Iil-P Nos. 3384-86 of
1986 firled by the Union of India aigainsit the judgrnent ol'the Altahabad High
Court'were disnrisserd by th;rs Cr:lurt orx merit on 8-4-1986. Again SLP Nos.
l97l(t-22 r:f i99l filed by thr:m against the judgment of the Principal Bench of
thr: 'l'ribunaI dated 7-6- 199)l were drsmissed with some observations on
6-l-l')92 along'witlr lntervention.r\pplication No. I and SLP (C)... of l99l
filed by the J'rrnior'Iblecom Officr:r:;' Association (tndia) r;eeking permission to
file S:t-P.
2" A Review []etrtion file<i by r:hr: IJnion of lndia against the judgment of the
Principal Ilench of the l-ribunal dated 1-6-1991 was disrnis,sed by the Tribunal
or-ir i.-l1l-1991 Thereatter, another Br::hch of the'Tribunal presided over by its
Chairrrran qa\,e cert,rin directions to tfrre r:espondents on28-./-1992 in a batch oi
Conta:mpt F\rtitiuns iiled by' the petitilrners alleging non-comptiance of tht:
.ju,Cgrttent of the I"rirr,:ipal Bench of the T'ribunal dated 1-6-l'991.
ll" In the;rforesaid order daterl]/8-2 1992. the Bench noted the intention of
thr: respond:nts to revise Ihe r;errioril.v of the entire c:adre of Telegraph
Enginreerirrg lSer,vrce Group B Oflfice,rs as per para 206 of the P&T Manual
Volurne I\/.'T'he reS[re6ls6ts befo:ethe'fribunal had submitted that (i) since the
cadre exccecl:i t61,11C1{) persons, thc, implementation would Iake time and that the
rules and instrurctions relating to reservrltion in favour of ,SCiST persons (Mf'
N,rs.957,95;8,965 and 966 of 1!l'9,2 in MP No. 195 of 19r9r2); (jj) the Telecorn
Engineering lier,,'ices l\ssociatiorr ([n,Cia) which also supports the stand of the
applrcarrts (lilP No l2l9 of 199,t in O.A No.2407 of 19t|8); and (iii) Junior
r1 Telecom Of[ircers' iF:orrum for ReCressan of Grievances said to represent 6000
5/
affected persons and .lunior Telecorn Officers' Associatir:n (lndia) both of
wlnich contend that lne judgnrent of the Allahabad High Court and the decisions
of this Trrbunal folkrwing the saiJ decision do not constitLrte good precedents,
that they are.iudgments per incuriam, that the matter should be considered on
the rne.rits afresh arrd rhat the applicants before us shoulirJ not be granted the
reliets sought by them 1MP Nos. :l4r)3, 3494, 3396 and 339? of 1991).

\\/nt Petrtrorr Ncs 2739 and 261i2 of 191,)1, decrdcd on 20-2-1985

 Su::rrenre' C:'r.rt -ases t'url T-ext on ;-[)-R(.)M, Copyrigl't O 1969 .2C 14, EBC Publrsftrrq Pvt. Lt t]
1,.,.i..
:,\);,,t \..-r,
r\; i --/ '.-1-
:.:>..4'\".-.r.,
Pa:)e 3 I'ues:1ay, f'llverr'rl;e" )-t-;,2.014

ot'rLtNl E T Th s prr.rdut.t rs ircei-c'cd to M/s. l.arrth & Assocrates, I'lew Delht

True[trint'' source: Sup,reme Court Cases
TruePrint'"

1)A
L,LA' S I JPR I,ME (]O U R.T I:]ASES l9i)4 Supp (2) SCC
4. Th,e 'I'rtbunal thereafter consi(lere'd the submissiofls crI the petitioners
b,:f,clreit and the intervenIiornists a.nd toclk rihe view that since thr: Special Leave
Petitioris against the judgment of' the A,l,[rlhabad Higit Court rlated 20-2-1985
\e'ere disnrissed on meritr;, it achieved l'inality
5. On' the s;ec:ond qu,e,stion whether petitioners were entitled ro the payment
of rlrrears of pay ;ind allow,ances fronr Ihe respective dates of their promotion,
tl"re Trubunal took thr: view that the High Court and various f]enches of the
Tribunal rjro not appear [o have considored the magnitude of the ;rroblem arising
out of the large-s(::ale revision of seniorit)z and promcltions ccmsequent thereto
retrospectlv'ely It took ttr: view tl-rat the rrormal rule of giving brack wages to the
persons concerne(:l will not appl'/ to sr.rch cases or in such situations. While
relyi6g upon Paluru l?ttmkrishnaiah v. L,tnion of Indiaz it noted the observations
of this Court that it is a well settle,d rule that there has to be no pay for no work
altl'rough after due t:on:,ideration n porsoo is given a proper place in the
gradation list having rJeerner1 to be promoted to the higher post rt'ith effect from
the date his junior was promoted. At the rrrost he would be entitled to refixation
of lnis prerjent IDay on th,e basis o1'not onal seniority granted tr:r him so that his
present salary w'(luld not bc less than tnose who are immediately below him.
The Tribunal further noticed tirat as large-scale revision o'f seniority and
crJrrrs€Quenrt prornotions r,vith retrosp€,ltrve effect mig;ht be anticipated in the
inst.ant ca.se, tlle a{oresaid ruting of th<': Siupreme Court woulcl apply and the
relief shcruld tie rnoulderj accordingly'. In the tight of these crllservations, the
Tribunal ;qave the following orders anc directions:
"( l) Srrbriect to u'hat rs stieted in (il) below, we hold that the decision of
the A.llahabadL Berrcl'd;rted 2U2- 985 in the cases of Pctr,n'tanand Inl and
Brij oha,nr and the jutJgrnents ol'"thr: 'Iribunal following Lhe said decision
lvf
lay down go()d law;and constitute g,:lr:d precedents to be allowed in similar
cases. W'e r3.iect tht: contentions of the intervenerS to Ihrr: contrary and
furthr:r hold that l'raving urged trefore the Supreme Court their vanous
contentions and their SLP havinp treen dismissecl by the iSupreme Court,
they r:annot reagrIatc the matter br:f'rrre us, We, therefore, dismiss MP Nos.
3396, |\391,.j493 arrd 3494 of i9lll in OA No. 2407 of i988 as being
devo;,C oi' an'y rneril..
(t!) \\'e hold that the applic:ants, are entitled to the beneht of the
.jurlgnrent r:f the Allahabad Fligh Ctrurt dated 20-'2-1985 er:r:ept that in the
evenI of r,:fir:ation of seniorrty arld notional prornotion with retrospective
effect. the'y rlould br: entttlecl onl'/ [o refixation of their present pay which
shoul,d oot br3 less tfran that of those who were immediateity below and that
they rvould not be entitled to back \!'aFles. We order and dirr:ct accordingly
(-]) W'e hold that in case the rrdr-awing of the seniorit'v list results in
reversion ,of'officers who had been cluly promoted alreariy, 11.,.1r. interests
shouli,C be safegutarcl,ld at least to the. extent of protecting the pay actually
beingl drawn by tfrenr, in casr) cri'eation of the requir;ite number of
supernum0ra.ry pclst:; to accornmrlda[e them in their present posts is not
founr:l to be f'elasible. We orde;r ancl direcl accordingly.
(,1) While efl'e.cting promotions, tlhe respondents shall give due regard to
the provisions f'ctr teservatton ir :iavour of Scheduled Clllstes/Scheduled
Tribes."

2 (t989),2 SCC 54lt lq89I;CC](l-&S,, 175 :(1989) l0 ATC 378: (1989) I li,:alc 830
 Suprenre .rrt Cases Full Text r;n :-l) U.()i't,'Jcpvrrght !t t969 2r-r 14, FBC Publrslrrnq Pvt. Lt'J
aiJ,r;ij/7r,', paQe 4
Cr:r
luesrlay, Noverr be. .l t . 2C'-'1
t\', I \'-.4
v,r). \-tt
\'==<' \ Z-
Of'lL"ll''JE f 1frrs prrr)dui:t rs rcerrced to M/s. "i.a'ttl^ & A:'socta[es, 1.,]elv Delht
TruePrint'' si)urce : Supreme Court Cases
TruePrint'*'

T'Et.trcOtvlNtL,,NIC,\l ION tiNCC. SERVIC:ti ASSN. v. UNIION OF il\lt)lA (Dayal, J.1 225

l'his viev,,, uias again uphelcl bv the impugned judgrrrent passed by the
'Iribunal cn rerview application.
cci,ncerned, it appears that the interventionists
6,, So lar as the first point is
filed paralIel proceedings thncugh Junior Telecom )fficer,s' Forum v. Union oJ
ln,:lial and this Courr (J S, Verma and Anand, JJ.) in an elaborate judgment took
the slrme.rie'r as rlf'at of thr: Allahabad High Crturt notict/ by the Principal
Bench ol'rhe
'I'ribunal in the aforesaid case of Parmanand ll-ol and Brii Mohanl
which has be,;onre {'rnal and has trer:n upheld by this Court rln merits. It is thus
lot nccessar'/ to ciwell on the first question decided by the. F'rincipal Bench any
furthr:r,
7" "f hr: ,cnly question w,hich survives relates to der:lining the order f0r
payrnenr cif back wa,ges from the rlue rJate of prorr,otion to trhe petitioners before
the Tribuna[ and s0rle of the appellan'ts/petitioners before us
8, It wou,id be noticed that the juCgment of the Altahtrl:ad High Court was \

delivr:recl in r,vrit per.rtir:ns which \&ere filed by two indiv'ir1uals as far back as \

(' l98l and rhe, ;udgment was delivc,re'd in 1985 which was afiirmed by this Court \
'l: on 8-,4-1986 fy[6rsr of the petitionr:rs brefore the Tribunal filed their applicati.ons I

pol",;"'i"- , claiming prorriolicin-frcimhrliefilare-oriltre Sasis oTTe r{1iaFab?a qffiloun i

4 judlhreltt,oiilt iiil988 'fhe1:glllrJl,iefftatiori@iqniority-and notional

I

p;ornnn*n,r:m-tett,rTiectivE, effi,c,-antt would be-enlittert-to-fixatioi oi their

Yri;
I

o\o'"'u;l \
j

r
ec. prESErnf flay-vJhich sr]'rould-not be less than to those*ffib ane immedEtety below I

tf* io rhem ant1 itie-que*ion is orily wfi"eiliei]hey wourld Ue EiiltteO-to b:*ck-wages

ffom-tlie i:late of notiorral prfifroiioii. We are of tligview rhat the fiibunal was I
I
I

j[srif'leA,-in :view; of the pecutiar i]ii'c'liriiiiances of' the cdfii-and enorm-ity of the
I
pioUenitiJaling ri,ith ltt,OOepn,orrs, in declining tdli'ar-r back wag?s except I

with effect 'ljom ttie: date thEy-ar:ftid'lly w.o(ed on Th-e lgbgrya-s-t, The:_ame
viCw wa.; tirk_en. by rhis Court --fr'-" itre aforcsaid judgment of Paluru
\tto
u
R,|il:\:..i:;iitiit)ct1tTwI.t.'!t159.qg1.4iIiinediirygf]'.fi. ,,)
9. Lelrned counsel for the petiliclners relied upon the rlr:cision of this Court
tn {Jnion lrulitt v, K.\/, Jankiratnana.
<t_f

l0. tt wilil be nrtticed that Janl:irantan{ matter relateJlo a case where the
poinr: involv',3d was r,s to whatbenefits an employe;e, who is r:ompletely or partly
e Xo0tlrilred irr disciplinary/criminal pnocee/ings, is entitlffl to and from which

drrte in case involving sealed cover pro(ledure. The Bench in Jankiraman c&te4
was not deairng w,rth the c&S,0 of rJue date of pronrotion orr revision of seniority
as a rcsulr: ol' any cl:cision of thr: Court effectin5l thousan<ls of employees and
revise<J s enil:rity list beinlg preJrared in purs,uance thr:reof and notional
pronrotion being; grlrnted with ret:rOspectrve effecrt. The Spncial Leave Petition
No. 1669i:i <tf 19'92 is accordingly disrnissed.
All the connected Civil App,eals and Speciat l.eave Petitions arc
11.
disposed of in thc tight of the aforcsaid judgmenrr. There is, however, no order
aS tO COStI:.

i()q3 Supp {,4) liCC 69l' 1994, SCC (i.&'is) i06. (199c1 26 ATC.ifi'l . crted at pp.90-116 of
the papcrbook'ol'C A Nos l8l3-13-A ol' 1993
.t991),1SCC
109 1993 SCC (L&S' 38i'. (1993) n A'rc 322