The benefit of a judgment can be extended to non-parties if they are identically placed and the judgment is not restricted to operate in personam. Exceptions to this rule include laches, delays, and acquiescence.

JUDGMENT

1. In matters of employment, the aspects of appointment, inter-se seniority and promotions are crucial. Time and again, issues relating to these aspects land in the Courts. The petitioner in this case has put up a case that he has been superseded by three of his juniors who were promoted to the rank of Senior Investigator out of turn, owing to the relaxation of certain rules by the department, first on ad-hoc basis and then on regular posts. Consequentially, the petitioner was also promoted. However, the respective dates of regularization of the petitioner and the three juniors had a gap of 4 years and aggrieved therewith, the petitioner has called upon the Court to regularize his services from a prior date.

Facts of the Case

2. The present case carries with it a long historical account. Let us briefly expound the same. On 21.12.1976, the petitioner joined as a Junior Investigator with the respondent. On 08.02.1977, three juniors of the petitioner namely, Sh. Suresh Kumar, Sh. R.S. Attri and Sh. K.L Goyal, who were already working as Junior Investigators on ad-hoc basis since 1973, 1974 and 1975 respectively, were regularized w.e.f. 04.11.1976. On 14.02.1978, the Ministry of Planning, Department of Statistics issued a notification containing the CSO, Dept. of Statistics (Sr. Investigator) Recruitment Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 1978 Rules'). The 1978 Rules provided for a method of promotion to the rank of Sr. Investigator, and mandated a minimum of 5 years of regular service as a Jr. Investigator before being considered for the promotion to senior grade. For brevity and want of relevance, other conditions and requirements of promotion, as per the 1978 Rules, are not being reproduced here. Thereafter, on 28.08.1978, the department released a seniority list of Jr. Investigators, wherein the petitioner stood at Sr. No. 66, above his three juniors. The list was later corrected, however the inter-se positioning of the petitioner and his juniors remained the same.

3. On 05.06.1979, five Jr. Investigators, including the three colleagues in question, were promoted as Sr. Investigators on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 01.06.1979. The petitioner gave representation to the department for consideration of his name as well for promotion. The department refused to accede to the representation. Thereafter, on 31.01.1981, the petitioner was appointed as Sr. Investigator on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 28.01.1981.

4. After almost 8 years, in 1989, the three juniors of the petitioner approached the Tribunal, vide O.A. 1631/1989 for regularization of their promotions from the date of their ad-hoc appointments. Thereafter, the petitioner also approached the Tribunal, vide O.A. 2051/1989, being aggrieved against the refusal of the department to entertain his representation dated 05.06.1979, for grant of promotion along with the three juniors in the same year i.e. 1979. The Tribunal passed a common order on 22.11.1993, observing that there is no right to seek regularization from the date of ad-hoc appointment, and refused to entertain the cases on merits. However, noting that the vacancies in senior grade had arisen in 1986, it directed the department to conduct a review DPC and consider the case of the applicants in light of the aforesaid vacancies.

5. The department responded to this observation and regularized the services of the petitioner and his three juniors as Sr. Investigators w.e.f. 08.05.1986 in accordance with the vacancy position. Subsequently, this order was partially modified and the services of all four employees including the petitioner stood regularized w.e.f. 15.11.1983.

6. In 1996, the three juniors of the petitioner (names already mentioned above) preferred another O.A. 1144/1996 before the Tribunal seeking regularization w.e.f. the date of their ad-hoc appointment in the senior grade i.e. from 1979. The Tribunal identified that some regular vacancies existed from 1964 onwards, and the case of the applicants must be reviewed acc