2006 Supreme(SC) 905

2006(8) Supreme 890
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
B.P. Singh, S.B. Sinha and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Union of India - Appellant
versus
Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Association - Respondent
IA No. 16 in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995
Decided on 28-9-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : L. Nageshwar Rao, P.P. Khurana, Sr. Advocates, Dayan Krishnan, Nikhil Nayyar, Gautam Narayan, R.K. Kapoor, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Govind Kaushik, Mrs. Anita Sharma (for Anis Ahmed Khan), Hemant Sharma, V.K. Verma, P. Parmeshwaran, Subramonium Prasad and Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates and Parmanand Lal, In-Person.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW - Telegraph Engineering Service Class II Recruitment Rules, 1966 - Post and Telegraph Manual, Vol. IV - Promotion from post of Engineering Supervisor Telecom to the post of Assistant Engineer - Applicants were members of the Telegraph Engineering Service Class II - Before coming into force of 1966 Rules, promotion from the post of Engineering Supervisor Telecom (Junior Engineer) to the post of Assistant Engineer was made in accordance with the instructions contained in Para 206 of P and T Manual - Promotion to Class II was made according to the principle of seniority cum fitness - Those who passed the qualifying examination earlier ranked senior as a group to those who passed the examination on subsequent occasions - However, with the coming into force of 1966 Rules, method of determining seniority was changed - In the matter of promotion emphasis shifted from the year of passing the examination to the year of recruitment/appointment of the candidate concerned - In year 1981, two candidates who qualified in the examination held in 1974 filed writ petitions complaining of their placement in the eligibilty list below the last man who passed the qualifying examination in 1975 - Allahabad High Court held that those who qualified in the departmental examination earlier were entitled to be promoted prior to those who qualified later, irrespective of the year of their initial recruitment - Following judgment of Allahabad High Court several petitions were allowed by the Tribunal seeking identical relief - SLPs filed were dismissed - However, by its judgment dated 31-12-1986, Tribunal held that year of recruitment for purpose of seniority is extraneous and irrelevant - It was directed that eligibility list be arranged according to the year of passing the qualifying examination - The Supreme Court by its judgment reported in (1997) 10 SCC 226, set aside judgment of the Tribunal - In view of conflicting judgments, Union of India finding difficulty in implementing order of the Supreme Court, filed application for clarification - Whether applicants can claim protection of their seniority - (Yes).

       Held : The question then arises as to whether the applicants can claim the protection of their seniority and consequent promotion on the basis of observations and the clarification contained in the judgment of this Court reported in (2000) 9 SCC 71. Having considered all aspects of the matter we are satisfied that those whose cases stand on the same footing as that of Parmanand Lal cannot now be adversely affected by re-determination of their seniority to their disadvantage relying on the later judgment of this Court in C.A. No. 4339 of 1995 reported in (1997) 10 SCC 226 as affirmed by this Court in its judgment reported in (2000) 9 SCC 71.(Para 16)

       We, therefore, direct that such of the applicants whose seniority had been determined by the competent authority, and who had been given benefit of seniority and promotion pursuant to the orders passed by Courts or Tribunals following the principles laid down by the Allahabad High Court and approved by this Court, which orders have since attained finality, cannot be reverted with retrospective effect. The determination of their seniority and the consequent promotion having attained finality, the principles laid down in later judgments will not adversely affect their cases.(Para 17)

       This Court has clearly clarified the position in its aforesaid judgment. The observations made by this Court while disposing of the appeal of Parmanand Lal are also pertinent. This Court clearly laid down the principle that the seniority fixed on the basis of the directions of this Court which had attained finality is not liable to be altered by virtue of a different interpretation being given for fixation of seniority by different benches of Tribunal. Consequently, the promotions already effected on the basis of seniority determined in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment of the Allahabad High Court cannot be altered. (Para 18)

       Having regard to the above observations and clarification we have no doubt that such of the applicants whose claim to seniority and consequent promotion on the basis of the principles laid down in the Allahabad High Courts judgment in Parmanand Lals case have been upheld or recognized by Court or Tribunal by judgment and order which have attained finality will not be adversely affected by the contrary view now taken in the judgment reported in 1997 (10) SCC 226. Since the rights of such applicants were determined in a duly constituted proceeding, which determination has attained finality, a subsequent judgment of a Court or Tribunal taking a contrary view will not adversely affect the applicants in whose cases the orders have attained finality.(Para 19)