The court affirmed the principle that subsequent administrative schemes cannot deprive employees of their seniority and benefits obtained under existing Rules.

ORDER

1. Application for impleadment is allowed.

2. The dispute in these appeals relates to the service conditions of the employees in the Posts and Telegraphs Department, Telecommunications Branch. The service conditions are governed by rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution in 1979 known as "the Posts and Telegraphs Department, Telecommunication Branch (Selection Grade Posts)

Recruitment Rules, 1979" (hereinafter referred to as the 1979 Rules). The Rules have been made applicable to the posts specified in the Schedule to the Rules. The Schedule also specifies the scales of pay and the method of recruitment to the posts in question. On the basis of the scales of pay the posts may be classified under the four grades, namely, Grades I, II, III and IV.

For our purpose we are concerned with Grade II with a pay scale of Rs 425640 and Grade III carrying a pay scale of Rs 550-750.

3. Under Grade II there are several posts which have been mentioned against Serial Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Grade I would be the feeder post from which the posts in Grade II would be filled, namely, the Upper Division Clerks as mentioned in column 12 to the Schedule of the Rules. As far as promotion to Grade II is concerned the Rules mention that it would be by way of promotion i.e. (i) 66 2/3% on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, and (ii) 33 1/3% by selection. Grade III posts are the posts carrying the pay scale of Rs 550-750 covering posts mentioned against Serial Nos. 1,4 and 5 of the same Schedule to which promotion is from Grade II.

4. The contesting respondents are employees who were promoted to Grade II from Grade and were selected for such promotion on the basis of departmental examinations held in 1981. As a consequence of this promotion, the other officers in Grade I who had not passed the departmental examination became junior to the appellants (sic respondents) irrespective of the length of their service in Grade I. The question which has arisen for decision in these appeals is whether a scheme subsequently adopted by the Department could deprive the contesting respondents of the seniority which they attained on being promoted in 1981. In order to decide this issue certain other facts need to be noted.

5. In 1983 the appellants framed the One Time-Bound Promotion Scheme (OTBP Scheme). It provided inter alia that the promotion to Grade II posts on the basis of departmental examinations would be abolished. It also provided for promotion to those who had continued in regular service for 16 years in the basic grade, namely, Grade I to Grade II. The Scheme, how made it clear that these promotions by reason of the OTBP Scheme w not affect the seniority of those who had been promoted to Grade II under, 1979 Rules. As such the contesting respondents before us and other promotees were all senior to those employees who obtained the benefit of

OTBP Scheme.

6. In 1990 there was a further scheme which was called the Biennial Cadre Review (BCR). Although the circular which was issued on 16-10-1 commences with a statement that the demand of the Staff Unions for second time-bound promotion on completion of 26 years of service in basic grade was not being accepted, the Scheme in fact goes on to exactly that. In short it provided that those who had continued in regular service for 26 years in the basic grade and those who were in service as on 1-1990 would be entitled to promotion. The promotion has been achieved upgradation of the posts to cater to the rights flowing from the decision grant those employees with 26 years of service, the higher grade. Although the Scheme provides for regular service in the basic grade as a precondition for grant of the benefit, the benefit was expressely made applicable to those employees who had already by virtue of the OTBP Scheme been granted promotion to Grade II with effect from 1983. As a result while completion the period of regular service was based on the basic grade ignoring promotions under the OTBP Sche