Judgment:

V. S. SIDUKAR. J.:-

l. 'This is a Con" tempt Petition field by Promo tee Telecom Engineers Forum and others. They complain that the Department of Telecommunications has flouted the judgment and directions dated 28.9.2006. The observations on which the petitioners rely are as follows:

"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 (2000 AIR reported 'in (2000) 9 SCC 71 sew 1529) 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 (supra) as affirmed by this Court in its judgment reported in (2000) 9 SCC 71 (supra)."'

2. The petitioners rely on the further directions given by the Court. They are to the following effect:

"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. 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 pertinet. 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 determinded in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment of the Allahabad High court cannot be altered.

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 Court's judgment in Parmanand Lal's 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. We order accordingly.

Before parting with this judgment we may observe that we have not laid down any principle or law having universal, application. We have only clarified and given effect to an earlier judgment of this Court rendered in an extraordinary situation."

3. The above mentioned observations and directions were issued at the instance of the Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum and Ors. (petitioners herein).

4. The petitioners contend that, all of them (45 in number) would be covered by these directions in as much as their claim to seniority and consequent promotion was finally reconized by the Tribunal and or the Court earlier and as such that claim could not be adversely affectedorily, because of the judgment reported in 1997(1O) SCC 226. The aforementioned directions were passed in I.A. No. 16 in Civil Appeal. No. 4339 of 1995 which was filed by the present Contempt Petitioners.

5. In their petition, The Petitioners have made the reference to the rules called Telegraph Engineering Service, Class-Il Recruitment Rules. 1966