Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh : Yogeshwar Dayal
Telecommunication Engineering Service Association India
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 16698 of 1992
Date of Decision : 5/13/94
Advocates Appeared: Ahmed Altaf : Amareshwari K. : Arora Meenakshi : Katiyar Anil : Kaushik Lalita : Kaushik Naresh : Mahajan V.C. : Mohan K.V. : Mukhoty Govinda : Pral G. : Rao P.P. : Ratnam T.V. : Sikri A.K. : Sikri Madhu : Suchitra C.K. : Swamy K. : Tarnta Binu : Vaidyanathan C.S.
Claim of compensation - Against the judgment - ON second question whether petitioners were entitled to the payment of arrears of pay and allowances from the respective dates of their promotion tribunal took the view that High court and various benches of the tribunal do not appear to have considered the magnitude of the problem arising out of large-scale revision of seniority and promotions consequent thereto retrospectively. It took the view that the normal rule of giving back wages to persons concerned will not apply to such cases or in such situations - While relying upon Union of India it noted observations of this court that it is a well settled rule that there has to be no pay for no work although after due consideration a person is given a proper place in gradation list having deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was promoted – Held, It would be noticed that the judgment of the Allahabad High court was delivered in writ petitions which were filed by two individuals as far back as and the judgment was delivered in which was affirmed by this court on - Most of petitioners before the tribunal filed their applications claiming promotion from earlier date on the basis of the Allahabad High court judgment only - They will get of their seniority and notional promotion with retrospective effect and would be entitled to fixation of their present pay which should not be less than to those who are immediately below them and the question is only whether they would be entitled to back wages from the date of notional promotion. We are of the view that the tribunal was justified, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and enormity of the problem dealing with 10,000.00 persons, in declining to grant back wages except with effect from the date they actually worked on the higher post. The same view was taken by this Court in the aforesaid judgment of where this court declined similar reliefs - Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of this court in Union of India - It will be noticed that matter related to a case where the point involved was as to what benefits an employee, who is completely or partly exonerated in disciplinary/criminal proceedings, is entitled to and from which date in case involving sealed cover procedure - Bench in case was not dealing with the case of due date of promotion on revision of seniority as a result of any decision of the court effecting thousands of employees and revised seniority list being prepared in pursuance thereof and notional promotion being granted with retrospective effect - Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed - Petitions are disposed of
Judgment
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.
(1) THIS Order will dispose of above-said 58 matters. However, we are taking the facts from Special Leave Petition No. 16698 of 1992. This Petition is directed against the judgment dated 29/6/1992 passed by the central Administrative tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi in Review Application No. 195 of 1992 in OA No. 2667 of 1991. This decision was rendered by the Principal bench over a conflict of decision on two basic issues which arose for consideration, namely (1 whether the applicants and persons similar to them are entitled to promotion from the grade of Jr. Engineers to the next higher grade in the Telegraph Engineering Service Group B (Assistant Engineers and equivalent post) on the basis of the year of passing the qualifying Departmental Examination envisaged in para 206 of the P&T Manual and not on the basis of their respective seniority as had been adopted and followed by the respondents; and (2 whether in the facts and circumstances, they are entitled to refixation of inter se seniority on the said basis and promotions with retrospective effect together with back wages. After considering the judgment of the High court of Allahabad (Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan v. Union of India ) and decisions of various benches of the tribunal which followed the above-said judgment of the Allahabad High court, the tribunal noticed that the Allahabad High court and the various benches of the Tribunal have concluded that the applicants are entitled to promotion, refixation of inter se seniority and consequential benefits as claimed by them and have decided the above-said two issues in their favour. The tribunal further noticed that Special Leave Petition Nos. 3384-86 of 1986 filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the Allahabad High court were dismissed by this court on merit on 8/4/1986. Again Special Leave Petition Nos. 19716-22 of 1991 filed by them against the judgment of the Principal bench of the tribunal dated 7/6/1991 were dismissed with some observations on 6/1/1992 along with Intervention Application no. 1 and Special Leave Petition (C) ... of 1991 filed by the Junior Telecom Officers Association (India) seeking permission to file SLP.
(2) A Review Petition filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the Principal bench of the tribunal dated 7/6/1991 was dismissed by the tribunal on 1/10/1991. Thereafter, another bench of the tribunal presided over by its Chairman gave certain directions to the respondents on 28/2/1992 in a batch of Contempt Petitions filed by the petitioners alleging non-compliance of the judgment of the Principal bench of the tribunal dated 7/6/1991.
(3) IN the aforesaid order dated 28/2/1992, the bench noted the intention of the respondents to revise the seniority of the entire cadre of Telegraph Engineering Service Group B Officers as per para 206 of the P&T Manual Volume IV. The respondents before the tribunal had submitted that (i) since the cadre exceeds 10,000.00 persons, the implementation would take time and that the rules and instructions relating to reservation in favour of SC/ST persons (MP Nos. 957, 958, 965 and 966 of 1992 in MP No. 1-95 of 1992; (ii) the Telecom Engineering Services Association (India) which also supports the stand of the applicants (MP No. 129 of 1992 in OA No. 2407 of 1988; and (iii) Junior Telecom Officers Forum for Redressal of Grievances said to represent 6000 affected persons and Junior Telecom Officers Association (India) both of which contend that the judgment of the Allahabad High court and the decisions of this tribunal following the said decision do not constitute good precedents, that they are judgments per incuriam, that the matter should be considered on the merits afresh and that the applicants before us should not be granted the reliefs sought by them (MP Nos. 3493, 3494, 3396 and 3397 of 1991.
(4) THE tribunal thereafter considered the submissions of the petitioners b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
