HEADNOTE

The petitioners in the writ petitions were appointed as Supervisors Grade ’A’ in various ordnance factories between 1962 and 1966, in pursuance of circular dated 6th Novembe r, 1962 issued by the Director General of Ordnance Factorie s.

The circular further provided for promotion from Supervis or ’A’ to Chargeman I1, on completion of two years’ satisfactory service.

75 Supervisors Grade ’A’ had moved a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court in 1972. Their grievance was th at even though quite a large number of Supervisors Grade ’ A’ had been promoted to the post of Chargeman Grade II on completion of two years’ satisfactory work, in pursuance of the circular dated 6th November, 1962, they had been discriminated against and had not been so promoted immediate ly on the expiry of two years’ service.

The writ petition was contested on the ground that t he promotion from Supervisor Grade ’A’ to Chargeman II we re governed by the Indian Ordnance Factories (Recruitment a nd Conditions of Service of Grade III Personnel) Rules, 1956 and such promotions could be made only in accordance wi th the procedure prescribed by Rule 8 of these Rules.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of unexplained laches. The Division Bench did n ot find any substance in the submission made on behalf of t he petitioners and dismissed their special appeal. According to the Divisi on Bench, it was difficult to read in the circular that aft er two years of satisfactory service there would be automat ic promotion from Supervisor Grade ’A’ to Chargeman II as su ch a view would militate against Rule 12 of the Rules, whi ch provided that no appointment shall be made otherwise than as specified in the Rules. It was further held by the Divisi on Bench that even assuming that some Supervisors Grade ’A’ h ad been automatically promoted on completion of two years’ service, without the recommendation after screening by t he Promotion Committee, as provided in Rule 8, no right wou ld accrue in favour of the appellants inasmuch as such promotions would be in the teeth of Rule 12.

Against the judgment of the Division Bench, Civil Appe al No. 441 of 1981 (Virendra Kumar and Others v. Union of Ind ia and Others, [1981] 3 SCC 30) was preferred and this Court by its order dated 2.2.1981 directed that the cases of the 75 appellants in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 be considered f or promotion as Chargeman Grade II and they be so promot ed unless found to be unfit.

Another group of 125 Supervisors Grade ’A’ got t benefit of the Circular dated 6.11.1962 in pursuance of an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 4th Apr il

1983 on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Civ il Appeal No. 441 of 1981. Special Leave Petitions against t he judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court were dismissed by this Court.

The petitioners in the present writ petitions pray th at the same relief may be granted to them as had been grant ed in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981.

In the Civil Miscellaneous petitions now filed in Civ il Appeal No. 441 of 1981, the petitioners, apart from t he prayer for initiating proceedings for contempt against t he respondents for disobedience of the order of this Cou rt dated-2.2.1981, have prayed for orders directing the respondents to implement in true letter and spirit the sa id order and to promote the petitioners to the next high er posts after giving them the benefit of the directions of that order. Their grievance is that their promotiontant amounts to implementation of the order of this Court dated 2.2.1981 only on paper inasmuch as they have not been gran t-

ed the difference of back wages and promotion to high er posts on the basis of their back-date promotion as Chargem an II.

Before this Court it has been urged on behalf of the respondents 94 that (i) promotions of employees including Supervisor ’ A’ were governed by the Rules and in view of Rule 12 no appointment could be made otherwise than as specified therei n;

(ii)