1. Direct recruits challenge a Tribunal order that disagreed with a previous final judgment granting them seniority and consequential benefits. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 301
1999(2) Supreme 440
Supreme Court of India
(From CAT, Mumbai)
K. Venkataswami & S.S. Mohammed Quadri, JJ.
U.H. Jadhav & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1439-1440 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 20037-20038 of 1996)
Decided on 12-3-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : B. Parthasarthy, A. Hari Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : A.S. Nambiar, Sr. Advocate, Y.P. Mahajan, K.C. Kaushik, V.K. Verma, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Advocates.
Important Points
A judgment that has attained finality and been implemented cannot be adversely affected by a subsequent judgment in different proceedings, even if the later judgment takes a contrary view on the same legal issue, as settled rights cannot be disturbed.
Subject
Administrative Law - Judicial Review
Act Referred
Headnote
Service Law-Seniority-Direct recruits vis-a-vis promotees-Two batches of petition by direct recruits-In one batch relief granted by CAT-Order attained finality-Subsequent dismissal of another batch-Appellants’ plea that without impleading them in subsequent batch of petition judgment rendered in their favour was upset-Held: merely because Tribunal has taken a different view in judgment under appeal appellant cannot be allowed to question same -However, decision in their favour attained finality-Department implemented order in their favour-Order under appeal cannot affect settled rights of appellants. (Para 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend that observations in a subsequent Tribunal judgment disagreeing with a previous favorable order prejudice their settled rights. (Para 4 )
3. The court observed that a subsequent differing view by the Tribunal does not disturb rights settled by a judgment that attained finality. (Para 5 )
4. A subsequent judgment by a tribunal cannot disturb settled rights established by a previous judgment that has attained finality. (Para 5 )
5. Appeals disposed of with clarification that the impugned order does not affect the settled rights of the appellants. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. Does a subsequent Tribunal judgment disagreeing with an earlier one affect rights already settled by the earlier judgment?
No. When an earlier judgment has attained finality—via dismissal of Special Leave Petitions and Review Petitions—and has been implemented, a subsequent judgment taking a different view cannot affect the settled rights of the parties. (Para 5 )
Judgment
Quadri, J.-Leave is granted.
2. The appellants filed these appeals against the common judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in Original Applications Nos. 425/92 and 259/93 dated December 6, 1995 by seeking permission of this Court as they were not parties to those original applications. The grievance of the appellants is that without impleading them in the said original applications the judgment of the Tribunal passed in their favour in OA No. 823/87 on July 11, 1991, was upset.
3. The appellants were required as Inspectors (O.G.) in the Central Excise Department of Mumbai during the period 1973 to 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘direct recruits’). They filed O.A. No. 823/87 before the Central Administrative Tribunal praying that the respondents therein be directed to give them seniority on the basis of continuous officiation and other consequential benefits. Their application was allowed by the Tribunal on 11.7.1991. For a similar relief other direct recruits also filed OA No. 425/92 on April 27, 1992. Yet another batch of direct recruits approached the Tribunal for similar relief by filing O.A. No. 259/93 in March 1993. While so the department challenged in this Court, by filing Special Leave Petition, the said judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 823/87 dated 11.7.1991. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by this Court on 9.3.1993. It is also on record that persons who were promoted from the lower post as Inspectors in the Central Excise Department, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as ‘the promotees’) and who were permitted to intervene in the said Original Applications Nos. 425/92 and 259/93, filed before the Tribunal Review Petition No. 18/93 seeking review of the said judgment of the Tribunal dated 11.7.1991 in O.A. No. 823/87. The Review Petition was also dismissed on October 20, 1993. In the meanwhile, the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I notionally re-fixed the seniority of the appellants in the cadre of Inspectors on 11.1.1993 and they were also granted consequential promotion as Superintendent of Central Excise by order issued by the Central Excise Department on 7.4.1994. However, on December 6, 1995, another Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, disagreeing with the judgment in the case of the petitioners in O.A. No. 823/87 dated 11.7.1991, dismissed O.A. No. 259/93 and O.A. No. 425/92 on 27.4.1992. It is that judgment and order of the Tribunal that is assailed as affecting the rights of the appellants.
4. Mr. B. Parthasarthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the observations made by the Tribunal with regard to its earlier judgment, in the case of the appellants, in O.A. No. 823/87 dated 11.7.1991, in the judgment under appeal with prejudice the appellants’ rights and therefore those observations have to be set aside. Shri A.S. Nambiar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, supported the judgment under appeal on various grounds.
5. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the case as it is beyond the scope of these appeals. Merely because the Tribunal has, in the judgment under appeal, taken a view different from that taken in its judgment passed in O.A. No. 823/87 dated 11.7.1991, the appellants cannot be allowed to question the same. However, so far as the grievance of the appellants is concerned, there is no dispute that the order of the Tribunal dated 11.7.1991 in O.A. No. 823/87 has attained finality as the challenge against that judgment failed before this Court in view of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition on 9.3.1993 as also before the Tribunal in view of the rejection of Review Petition No. 18 of 1993 filed by the promotees, the intervenors, in the cases under appeal, on October 20, 1993. The department has already implemented the said order of July 11, 1991 and given all consequential benefits and promotion to the appellants. Further, a perusal of the jud
