JUDGMENT

S.B.MAJMUDAR, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THIS appeal by special leave is against the order of central Administrative tribunal (CAT), Principal bench, New Delhi dismissing Original Application No. 2937 of 1991 filed by the appellants against Union of India and the respondents concerned working in the same department.

(3) A few relevant facts leading to this appeal may now be noted. The two appellants were initially recruited to Class II Group B service of the Indian Defence Estates Service (IDES) in 1969 and 1968 respectively. They were promoted to the lower post of Group A of Class I as Junior Time Scale (JTS) Officers in 1973 and 1975. Thereafter they were promoted to the next higher posts of Senior Time Scale (STS) and Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) in June 1982 and February 1988 respectively by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Respondents 3 to 27 are direct recruits appointed to Group A Class I Junior Time Scale after the appellants were promoted to that cadre. These facts are undisputed.

(4) RESPONDENTS 3 to 27 were treated as junior to Appellant 1, while Respondents 10 to 27 were treated as junior to Appellant 2, on account of the fact that Respondents 3 to 27 entered the service as direct recruits in Group A Junior Time Scale on various dates between 9/8/1973 and 1/3/1982, while the appellants herein were promoted to Junior Time Scale of Group A on 19-1- 1973 and 5/3/1975 respectively. The seniority list of 22/7/1987 showed the respondents concerned as junior to the appellants but no grievance was then made to the inter se seniority in that seniority list. The problem about refixation of inter se seniority in Group A Junior Time Scale of direct recruits like Respondents 3 to 27 and promotees like the appellants became acute on account of certain subsequent developments. There was another group of officers in Defence Service, namely, Group B Officers in Class II known as Assistant Defence Estate Officers (Technical) who were not considered to be in the Indian Defence Estate Service (IDES). They therefore filed application before the CAT for absorbing them in the IDES and also reckoning their continuous length of service as such. In short, against direct recruits in Group B Class II service like the appellants those latter group of officers claimed seniority and absorption. These latter group of officers were called Assistant Military Estates Officers (AMEOs) who were brought into Indian Defence Establishment Service (IDES) in 1976 long after their appointments as AMEOs. These AMEOs contended before the tribunal that once they are absorbed in the IDES in Group B service they should be treated on a par with existing Group B IDES like the appellants and their inter se seniority should be fixed keeping in view their continuous length of service prior to their induction into IDES. In those proceedings before the tribunal the appellants were made parties, because reshuffling of seniority in Group B posts in IDES was likely to have adverse effects on the seniority of appellants in Group B posts to which they were directly recruited. It may be pertinent to recall that the appellants were directly recruited as Group B officers in IDES with effect from 15/3/1969 and 22/2/1968 respectively. As we have already noted earlier the DPCs concerned at the relevant time considering the continuous officiation of appellants in Group B posts of IDES had already promoted them to Group A posts of Junior Time Scale from 19-1-1973 and 5/3/1975 respectively and they were subsequently promoted to the Senior Time Scale Group A on regular basis from 15/6/1982 and they were further promoted to Junior Administrative Grade in Group A posts on 22/2/1988.

(5) THE tribunal in the application moved by AMEOs issued directions in their favour. These directions issued by the tribunal have triggered off the present controversy. At this stage it may be noted that in those applications moved by