JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:- Promotees and direct recruits, in Government services, have an amazing capacity to rake-up old seniority disputes settled-finally by the Courts of law. This is the third round of litigation between such members of the Indian Statistical Service. This Court in Narender Chadha v. Union of India, (1 986) 1 SCR 21 1, finally decided the dispute regarding seniority between promotees and direct recruits belonging to Indian Economic Service and the Indian Statistical Service. This Court directed the Union Government (Para 23 of AIR):

"to treat all persons who are stated to have been promoted in this case to several posts in Grade IV in each of the two services contrary to the Rules till now as having been regularly appointed to the said posts in Grade IV under Rule 8(1)(a)(ii) and assign them seniority in the cadre with effect from the dates from which they are continuously officiating in the said posts. Even those promotees who have been selected in 1970, 1982 and 1984 shall be assigned seniority with effect from the date on which they commenced to officiate continuously in the posts prior to their selection. For purposes of seniority the dates of their selection shall be ignored. The direct recruits shall be given seniority with effect from the date on which their names were recommended by the Commission for appointment to such grade or post as provided in clause (a) of Rule 9-C of the Rules. A seniority list of all the promotees and the direct recruits shall be prepared on the above basis treating the promotees as full members of the Service with effect from the dates from which they are continuously officiating in the posts."

(Emphasis supplied)

2. The question for our consideration is whether the expression "posts" used by this Court in the above-quoted directions means "cadre posts" or it includes the ex cadre posts held by the promotees in the Indian Statistical Service. In other words whether the benefit of continuous officiation towards seniority is to be confined to the period spent against the cadre post or the total of such period whether against cadre or ex-cadre Post.

3. The directions of this Court quoted above are crystal-clear. It is a pity that the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (Tribunal) viewed the above directions in utter oblivion. This Court directed the Union of India:

a) to treat all persons, stated to have been promoted contrary to Rule, having been regularly appointed to Grade IV of the Service; and,

b) Assign them seniority from the date of their continuously officiation in Grade IV posts;

c) Even those promotees who were selected for regular promotion in 1970, 1982 and 1984 shall be assigned seniority from the dates they commenced officiation continuously in Grade IV prior to their selection.

4. A bare look at each of the above directions makes it clear that this Court made the pr6motees regular members of Grade IV Service from the day they are continuously holding posts in the said Service. This Court did not make any distinction between a cadre post or an ex cadre post. The Courts judicious conscious was touched by the fact that the promotees were performing the duties of the jobs (posts) in Grade IV Service for over fifteen years and still they were treated ad hocs and their appointments considered contrary to the Rules. This Court found it to be wholly arbitrary and directed that they be treated as regular members of the service from the day of their continuous appointment. Even the promotees who were regularly selected in the years 1970, 1982 and 1984 against their quota posts were given benefit of their earlier officiation which was obviously not against the posts meant for the promotees: We are, therefore, of the view that this Court laid down in clear terms that the promotees are entitled to count towards seniority the entire period of service in Grade IV posts whether cadre or ex cadre. We may, however, dilate upon the judgement in Chadhas case a bit more to clarif