Full Judgment Text
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV
[PART-HEARD]
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 4389/2010
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SOHAN LAL SAYAL & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With application for directions and office report)
WITH
C.A. No. 8929-8945/2012
[B.S.N.L. & ANR. V. NAND LAL JASWAL & ORS. ]
(With Office Report)
T.P.(C) No. 1681/2012
[RAM SINGH V. MTNL & ORS.]
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 7659-7661/2013
[BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. AND ORS. V DHANI RAM AND ORS.]
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 6769/2013
[B.S.N.L. & ORS. V. MANOHAR LAL & ORS.]
(With prayer for Prayer for Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 9348/2013
[BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ORS. V. NARESH BHARTI & ORS.]
(With Office Report)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 10360/2010
[UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. MARIAMMA JOHN & ORS.]
(With application for condonation of delay in filing SLP and
Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 3319/2012
[B.S.N.L. V. MOHAR SINGH & ORS.]
(With prayer for interim relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 22462/2012
[CHAIRMAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, BSNL AND ORS. V. VED PRAKASH AND
ORS.]
(With Office Report)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Kalyani Gupta
Date: 2015.02.21
10:41:04 IST
Reason:
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
SLP(C) No. 4235-4237/2013
[BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ORS. V. DALWARA SINGH & ANR. ETC.]
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 5008/2012
[PROMOTEE TELECOM ENGINEER FORUM V.B.S.N.L. & ORS.]
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 5145/2012
[UOI & ANR. V. OM PRAKSH & ORS.]
(With applications for impleadment and Office Report)
Date : 21/01/2015 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
For Appellant(s)
IN CA 4389, SLP 3319
5145 & CC 10360 Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, A.O.R.
IN CA 8929-45, 6769, Mr. R.D. Agrawala, Sr. Adv.
9348, SLP 7659-61, Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Adv.
22462, 4235-37 Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah, A.O.R.
Ms. Pawan Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Eshita Baruah, Adv.
IN TP 1681 Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Adv.
Ms. Liz Mathew, A.O.R.
Ms. Gauri Puri, Adv.
IN CA 5008 Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Gautam Narayan, A.O.R.
For Applicant(s) Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Adv.
Mr. C.B. Gururaj, Adv.
For M/s Legion of Lawyers, Avs.
For Respondent(s)
For UOI in SLP 22462 Mr. J.S. Attri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. AK. Sanghi, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv.
PAGE NO. 2 OF 4
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.
IN CA 4389
For RR 1-9 Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Adv.
Ms. Lalitha Kaushik, A.O.R.
For RR 10-18 Mr. C.S. Rajan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A. Raghunath, A.O.R.
For RR 19-506 in Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.
CA 4389, R1 in CA Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Adv.
8930, 8932, 8933-35 Ms. Liz Mathew, A.O.R.
8939-40, 8929-45 Ms. Gauri Puri, Adv.
all rrs in CA 5008
For RR 507-534 Ms. Rani Chhabra, A.O.R.
Ms. Priyanka Sony, Adv.
For RR 1 & 2 in Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.
CA 6769 Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Adv.
Ms. Liz Mathew, A.O.R.
Ms. Gauri Puri, Adv.
For RR 1-5 in Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.
CA 9348 Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Adv.
Ms. Liz Mathew, A.O.R.
Ms. Gauri Puri, Adv.
For RR in CA 8929-45
Mr. Gautam Narayan, Adv.
Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv.
For Rrs in
SLP 3319 Dr. Sushil Balwada, A.O.R.
For Rrs in Ms. Rani Chhabra, A.O.R.
SLP 22462 Ms. Priyanka Sony, Adv.
For Rrs in Ms. Rani Chhabra, A.O.R.
SLP 4235-37 Ms. Priyanka Sony, Adv.
For RR in
CA 5008 Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Adv.
Ms. Liz Mathew, A.O.R.
Ms. Gauri, Adv.
For Rrs in SLP 5145
Dr. Sushil Balwada, A.O.R.
Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
PAGE NO. 3 OF 4
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, A.O.R.
For RR 2 Ms. Rani Chhabra, A.O.R.
Ms. Priyanka Sony, Adv.
For RR 59-76 Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Adv.
Ms. Rekha Giri, Adv.
Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan, A.O.R.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
IA NO. 6 in CA Nos. 8929-8945 is allowed. Cause
title be amended accordingly.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted in all the petitions for special
leave.
The appeals are disposed of as indicated in the
signed reportable judgment but the matters shall be
listed immediately after six months on receipt of
the Report from the Expert Committee solely for the
purpose of passing appropriate orders based on the
Report.
Transfer Petition is allowed in terms of the
signed order.
[KALYANI GUPTA]
[SHARDA KAPOOR]
COURT MASTER
COURT MASTER
[SIGNED ORDER IN TRANSFER PETITION AND SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT
IN REST OF THE MATTERS ARE PLACED ON THE FILE.]
[PS: LEARNED COUNSEL FOR BSNL TO GIVE THE CONTACT DETAILS OF THE
FORMER LAW SECRETARY WHO HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS ONE OF THE MEMBERS
OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE.]
PAGE NO. 4 OF 4
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.4389 OF 2010
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
.....
SOHAN LAL SAYAL & ORS. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No.5008 OF 2012
PROMOTEE TELECOME ENGINEERS FORUM ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
.....
B.S.N.L & ORS. RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO
S.8929-8945 OF 2012
B.S.N.L. & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
.....
NAND LAL JASWAL & ORS. RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL No.6769 OF 2013
B.S.N.L. & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MANOHAR LAL & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9348 OF 2013
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ORS...... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
.....
NARESH BHARTI & ORS. RESPONDENTS
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1454 OF 2015
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C) NO.3319 OF 2012]
B.S.N.L. ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
.....
MOHAR SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1657 OF 2015
[ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.5145 OF 2012]
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
OM PRAKSH & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1456 OF 2015
[ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.22462 OF 2012]
CHAIRMAN CUMMANAGING DIRECTION,
B.S.N.L. & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
.....
VED PRAKASH & ORS. RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1457-1459 OF 2015
[ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS. 4235-4237 OF 2013]
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ORS...... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
DALWARA SINGH & ANR ETC. ..... RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1460-1462 OF 2015
[ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS.7659-7661 OF 2013]
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ORS...... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
DHANI RAM AND ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
AND
PAGE NO. 2 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1453 OF 2015
[ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 3923 OF 2015]
[ARISING OUT OF CC NO.10360 OF 2010]
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
MARIAMMA JOHN & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA J.
1. We shall deal with the judgment impugned in the
Civil Appeal Nos. 8929-8945 of 2012 for the purpose of
referring to the facts as well as the date of judgments
of this Court which were either followed or referred to
or relied upon by the Tribunal as well as the Division
Bench. Further, the issue involved in all connected
appeals are also identical though some of the appeals
have been preferred against the judgments of other High
Courts namely, the High Courts of Himachal Pradesh,
Punjab and Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Rajasthan
and Madhya Pradesh. There is a transfer petition seeking
transfer of a Writ Petition pending before the High Court
of Delhi to this Court wherein identical issue is stated
PAGE NO. 3 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
to be involved.
2. The core issue pertains to the rights of thousands
of Junior Telecommunication Officers known as J.T.O. also
called Junior Engineers to the next higher post of Sub-
Divisional Engineer, also known as, Assistant Engineers
and the criteria to be applied namely, whether the order
of passing a departmental qualifying examination or the
relevant recruitment order/order of entry for the purpose
inter se
of determining seniority . The issue was earlier
dealt with by the Allahabad High Court which came to be
considered by this Court and ultimately by a judgment of
th
this Court dated 8 April, 1986, it was held that the
order of passing departmental qualifying examination
should be the criteria for drawing the Select List for
promotion. Subsequently, by the judgment of this Court
Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes &
in
Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association – (1997) 10
SCC 226
, this Court held that the order of
recruitment/order of entry should be the criteria for
promotion.
3. By virtue of such diametrical opposite views
th
expressed by this Court in the judgment dated 8 April,
1986 and the one reported in Union of India v. Madras
Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social
PAGE NO. 4 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
Welfare Association – (1997) 10 SCC 226 which came to be
th
delivered on 13 February, 1997, a question arose as to
which of the criteria has to be uniformly applied for
effecting the promotion from the post of Junior Engineer
to the post of Assistant Engineer. In such a situation,
Union of
after the judgment of this Court reported in
India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes Social Welfare Association – (1997) 10 SCC 226 , an
interlocutory application was filed in this Court viz.,
IA No.2 of 1999. The said IA was disposed of along with
Contempt Petition (C) No.121 of 1999 and connected C.A.
Nos. 6485-86 of 1998 as well as IA Nos. 4 and 5 of 1999
in the said Civil Appeals. The said detailed judgment
th
Union
came to be rendered on 26 April, 2000 reported in
of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association – (2000) 9
SCC 71
and it will be relevant to refer to the said
judgment in the forefront as that would form the basis
for our conclusion in this batch of cases.
4. Relevant paras of the said judgment are extracted
hereinbelow:-
“17. ….................In accordance with the
prescribed procedure for preparation of eligibility
list, notified by the Government on 28.6.1996, the
Departmental Promotion Committee has to prepare
PAGE NO. 5 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
separate lists for each year of recruitment in the
feeder category. In other words, if in 1958, the
Departmental Promotion Committee has to prepare
separate lists for each year of recruitment in the
feeder category. In other words, if in 1958, the
Departmental Promotion Committee is recommending
people for promotion to Class II, then all the
eligible candidates who had passed the departmental
examination and were recruited in the year 1951 and
so on and so forth. Once, separate lists are
prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee of
the officers recruited indifferent recruitment years
in the feeder category and the criterion for
promotion being seniority-cum- fitness, then it
would create no problem in promoting the officers
concerned. As to the inter se position of the
officials belonging to the same year of recruitment
in the feeder category, the procedure to be adopted
has been indicted in para (999) of the memorandum
dated 28.6.1966. In this view of the matter, we are
of the considered opinion that the judgment of this
Court in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995 has rightly
been decided in interpreting the relevant provisions
of the Recruitment Rules read with the procedure
prescribed under the memorandum dated 28.6.1966.
We, however, make it clear that the persons who have
already got the benefit like Parmanand Lal and Brij
Mohan by virtue of the judgments in their favour,
will not suffer and their promotion already made
will not be affected by this judgment of ours.
19........... We have also indicated that the
promotions already effected pursuant tot e judgment
of the Allahabad High Court, which was upheld by
this Court by dismissing the special leave petition
filed by the Union of India, will nto be altered in
any manner. This being the position and the
judgment of the Allahabad High Court in favour of
Parmanand Lal having attained finality, he having
received the benefit of the said judgment and having
been promoted, could not have been reverted because
of some later judgments and directions given either
the tribunals or by this Court.”
(emphasis added)
5. Having regard to the above referred two paragraphs
PAGE NO. 6 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
set out after considering the earlier judgment of this
th th
Court dated 8 April, 1986 and the one rendered on 13
February, 1997, what emerged was that the persons who
also got the benefit at par with the appellants covered
th
by the order of this Court dated 8 April, 1986; namely,
Paramanand Lal v. Brij Mohan ; by virtue of the judgments
in their favour held not to be affected and their
promotions already made should not be interfered with.
The said position was again reiterated in IA No.16 in
Union
C.A. No.4339 of 1995 dated 28.09.2006 reported as
of India v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Assn.
- (2006) 8 SCC 662 . Paras 19 and 21 of the said judgment
are relevant for our purpose which read as under:
“19. 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.
21. 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 Case have been upheld or recognised by the Court
or the Tribunal by judgment and order which have
attained finality will not be adversely affected by
PAGE NO. 7 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
the contrary view now taken in the judgment Madras
Telephones. 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.” (Emphasis added)
6. Subsequently, arising out of the said judgment
Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled
reported in
Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association –
(2006) 8 SCC 662
a contempt proceeding was initiated in
Contempt Petition (C) No.248 of 2007 in IA No. 16 in C.A
No.4339 of 1995 in which an order came to be passed in
Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum
the judgment reported in
and Others v. D.S. Mathur, Secretary, Department of
Telecommunications -
(2008) 11 SCC 579. In para 21 of the
said judgment the following direction has been issued:
“21. We, therefore, direct that the
respondents shall rearrange the seniority in terms
of the principles laid down in Parmanand Lal case
restoring their earlier position and shall not put
any employee over and above the present
petitioners on the basis of the seniority in
service in the entry year, more particularly
S/Shri Belani, Biradar and Kulkarni shall not be
put over and above the petitioners herein. This
shall be done within 8 weeks from the date of this
judgment.”
7. It must be stated that whatever benefit granted
pursuant to the above judgment namely Union of India v.
Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
PAGE NO. 8 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
Social Welfare Association – (2006) 8 SCC 662 and
Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum and Others v. D.S.
Mathur, Secretary, Department of Telecommunications -
(2008) 11 SCC 579 can be sufficiently safeguarded while
passing orders ultimately in this batch of cases.
8. As far as the present challenge made in these
appeals are concerned, it would suffice for us to confine
to the principle clearly set out in the above referred to
extracted paras 17 and 19 of the judgment reported in
Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association – (2000) 9
SCC 71 .
9. Keeping the above-said principles in mind, when we
examine the judgment in these main appeals what is
required to be noted is the order of the Tribunal dated
th
28 February, 1992 of the Punjab Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal. Subsequent to the confirmation
of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court by the order
th
of the Supreme Court dated 8 April, 1986, the private
respondents herein namely, respondent Nos. 1 to 512
approached the Tribunal seeking for extension of the very
same benefit which was conferred on similarly situated
th
persons covered by the order of this Court dated 8
PAGE NO. 9 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
April, 1986. When the Tribunal was dealing with their
claims, the appellants herein filed an Undertaking dated
th
27 February, 1992 which was as under:-
“ The anomaly in seniority of TES Group B has
arisen of (as?) a consequence of implementation of
the decision of CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi dated
07.06.1991.... in respect of the petitions in the
said OAs which in other words is implementation of
the said decision in respect of limited No. of TES
Group B Officers who have gone to Hon'ble Tribunal
instead of its implementation to the entire order of
TES Group B.” and that therefore, in view of the
“Supreme Court decision upholding the decision of
Principal Bench, the proposal revise the seniority
of entire TES Group B officers as per para 206 of P&
T Manual Vol. IV is under consideration of the
Deptt. Since the cadre of TEA, Group B exceeds
10000, the entire exercise of
collecting/compiling/organisation the information is
likely to take at least six months time. The
exercise has already been initiated. The names of
petitions would be accordingly placed, in TES, Group
B seniority list and thereafter would be considered
for further promotion according to revised list in
accordance with rules, availability of vacancies and
on the basis of recommendations of DPC.”
10. By virtue of the said specific categoric stand
taken by the Department of Telecommunication viz., the
predecessor of the appellant, the Tribunal passed its
th
order dated 28 February, 1992 holding as under:-
“2. It is clear from what we have extracted
above that the respondents have taken a firm
decision to give effect to the principle laid down
by the decision of the Tribunal which decision
stands affirmed by the Supreme Court, by reviewing
the promotions of everyone who is similarly situated
and not confining it only to those who approached
the court for relief. They have conceded that they
PAGE NO. 10 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
made a mistake in limiting their attention in the
matter of giving deemed dates of promotion only to
those who obtained orders from the Tribunal and
ignoring the cses of others similarly situated only
because they had not secured similar orders from the
Tribunal. Now they hve realized that once the
principle has been laid down by the Tribunal which
is of general application, it is their duty tomake a
comprehensive review in respect of everyone who is
similarly situated whether all of them have obtained
orders from the Tribunal or not. The attitude now
taken which is reflected in what we have extracted
above is correct. That is the only way of
satisfactorily giving effect to the principle laid
down by the Tribunal in various cases, including
those enforcement of which has been sought in these
contempt of court petitions. The respondents have
stated that though steps have been initiated having
regard to the fact that they have to review the
cases fo nearly ten thousand persons, the exercise
is likely to take about six months' time. They have
further stated that after the revised seniority list
is prepared, according of further promotion on the
basis of the revised seniority list and following
the relevant rules would be made on the basis of the
recommendations of the DPC.
As right steps have now been taken, there should
not be any need for other similarly situated to rush
to the Tribunal for grant of relief as they would
all get relief by application of the same principle,
whether or not they approached the Tribunal and
secured orders in their favour...
4. …. A copy of this order be also circulated to
other courts in the principal bench dealing with
other matters in which similar relief is claimed on
the original side.”[emphasis added.]
11. Thus, the claims of the private respondents 1 to
511 herein along with thousands of similarly situated
Junior Engineers came to be dealt with by the appellant
and it is common ground that their seniority was
determined in the year 1993, which was reflected in
PAGE NO. 11 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
different lists numbering 17 covering several thousands
of employees.
12. While that be so, after the order of this Court
Union of India v.
passed in IA No. 2 of 1999 reported in
Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
Social Welfare Association – (2000) 9 SCC 71
, for reasons
best known to the Department, the appellant took certain
steps by which whatever seniority which was determined in
the year 1993 and covered by the 17 lists were stated to
have been reversed and a different set of officers were
favoured with seniority and promotions. When such a step
was taken at the instance of the appellant, challenges
were made before the Tribunal by those who were aggrieved
and who were part of the List containing 17 in number
drawn in the year 1993. While dealing with their
th
grievances, the Tribunal by its order dated 26 May, 2009
passed in T.A. No. 47/PB/09, interfered with the
subsequent action of the appellant in having
re-determined the Seniority of the members in the 17
Lists drawn in the year 1993. The appellant approached
the Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of a writ
petition in which the present impugned order came to be
th
passed on 25 November, 2011 holding that the view taken
PAGE NO. 12 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
by the Tribunal was perfectly justified and there is no
scope for interference. Aggrieved by the said decision
of the High Court the B.S.N.L. is before us.
13. We heard learned senior counsel Mr. R.D. Agarwala,
for B.S.N.L., Mr. V. Giri, learned senior Counsel for the
Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta,
learned senior counsel for the private respondents and
after having perused the impugned judgment, we are also
convinced that the ultimate conclusion drawn by the
Tribunal as confirmed by the Division Bench does not call
for interference. We are convinced that after specific
Union
directions contained in paragraphs 17 and 19 of the
of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association – (2000) 9
SCC 71
, when the rights of the private respondents herein
got crystallised based on the specific stand of the
th
appellant taken in its undertaking dated 27 February,
1992 and the subsequent 17 Seniority Lists drawn by it,
the appellant was wholly unjustified in having taken a
‘U’-turn in the year 2000 and reverse the seniority of
all those who were covered by those 17 Lists. When in the
th
judgment dated 26 April, 2000 of this Court reported in
Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes &
PAGE NO. 13 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association – (2000) 9
SCC 71
made a categoric and clear pronouncement as to how
Union
the latter principle laid down in the judgment of
of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association – (1997) 10
SCC 226
should prevail without affecting the rights of
those whose cases were already determined and reached a
finality based on the orders of the Courts, the appellant
ought not to have meddled with their seniority and
subsequent promotions and the benefits granted on that
basis in respect of those officers covered by the List of
17 drawn in the year 1993. In the light of our above
conclusion, there is no scope to interfere with the
judgment impugned in these appeals.
14. Even after holding so, we find that the matter does
not rest there. As referred to earlier, subsequent to
the judgments of this Court which clarified the position
while applying the judgment in Union of India v. Madras
Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social
Welfare Association – (1997) 10 SCC 226 , namely, the one
reported in Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association –
(2000) 9 SCC 71 there were two other judgments with
PAGE NO. 14 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
reference to the very same issue which were reported in
Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare
Assn. - (2006) 8 SCC 662 and Promotee Telecom Engineers
Forum and Others v. D.S. Mathur, Secretary, Department of
Telecommunications -
(2008) 11 SCC 579. In fact the
rights of the applicants at the instance of the
applicants in IA 16 in CA No. 4339 of 1995 were
considered in the judgment reported in Union of India v.
Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Assn. - (2006) 8
SCC 662
. Having got the benefit under the said order a
contempt petition came to be filed at their instance
which came to be disposed of as per the judgment reported
in Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum and Others v. D.S.
Mathur, Secretary, Department of Telecommunications -
(2008) 11 SCC 579.
15. While dealing with their stand it was clearly
directed as under in paragraph 21.
“We, therefore, direct that the respondents shall
rearrange the seniority in terms of the principles
laid down in Parmanand Lal case restoring their
earlier position and shall not put any employee over
and above the present petitions on the basis of the
seniority in service in the entry year, more
particular S/Shri Belani, Biradar and Kulkarni shall
not be put over and above the petitioners herein.
This shall be done within 8 weeks from the date of
this judgment.”
PAGE NO. 15 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
16. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for
those who were aggrieved by the impugned judgment
submitted that any orders passed herein should not affect
their rights.
17. Having noted the above features, we wish to refer
to the submissions of Mr. Agarwala, learned senior
counsel appearing for the B.S.N.L. who submitted that
after the reversal of the 17 Seniority Lists drawn in the
year 1993, which took place in the year 2000, a different
course was adopted applying the principle laid down in
the judgment reported in Union of India v. Madras
Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social
Welfare Association – (1997) 10 SCC 226
and that such
promotions effected remains in force for the past nearly
15 years covering not less than 10,000 employees.
18. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submitted that
even if the present impugned judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal
th
dated 26 May, 2009 is to be implemented, the same would
have far reaching consequences affecting the rights of
not less than 8000 employees who were covered by the 17
lists drawn in the year 1993 on the one side and nearly
about 10,000 employees who were given the benefit of
PAGE NO. 16 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
promotions subsequent to the order of Union of India v.
Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
Social Welfare Association – (2000) 9 SCC 71 .
19. On this, we heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior
counsel for the private respondents and Mr. V. Giri,
counsel appearing for the Telecom Forum. We are of the
considered opinion that in the interest of the
institution namely, the appellants as well as the large
number of employees whose grievances are to be
sufficiently examined, considered and safeguarded with
minimum disturbance in the matter of fixing their
seniority as well as promotions already granted in their
favour or to be restored as per this judgment, a detailed
consideration of the respective stand requires to be
made. Since such an exercise would involve consideration
of very many factors involving several thousand employees
and in order to balance the rights of both the groups, we
feel it appropriate to entrust the said exercise to be
carried out by an independent Expert Committee preferably
to be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court, with
the assistance of a retired Member of the Central
Administrative Tribunal based on the principles laid down
in the various judgments. The learned counsel appearing
PAGE NO. 17 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
for the appellants and the respondents also submitted
that such a course would amicably resolve the crisis.
20. We, therefore, constitute an Expert Committee
consisting of Hon'ble Shri Justice K. Ramamoorthy,
Retired Judge of the High Court of Madras, residing at
'Prashant' D-17, Greater Kailash Enclave-I, New Delhi –
110 048 who will be the Chairman and Mr. D.P. Sharma,
Former Secretary in the Ministry of Law and Justice and
Former Vice Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench at New Delhi shall be the Member. The
appellant-Department is directed to provide all necessary
details as regards the officers/employees whose names
were found in the 17 Lists drawn in the year 1993 whose
rights have been upheld by the Tribunal and affirmed by
the impugned orders of the various High Courts, as well
as, the list of those officers who came to be
subsequently dealt with and whose seniority was fixed
after 2000 i.e. after reversing the 17 Seniority Lists of
1993 along with all relevant Rules, Regulations and other
materials which the Expert Committee wish to call for,
for their consideration. We only direct the Expert
Committee to ensure that the rights which have been
crystallised in favour of the applicants in IA NO. 16 in
PAGE NO. 18 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
CA No. 4339 of 1992 reported in the judgment of Union of
India v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Assn. -
(2006) 8 SCC 662 as well as by the judgment in the
Contempt Petition No.248 of 2007 reported in Promotee
Telecom Engineers Forum and Others v. D.S. Mathur,
Secretary, Department of Telecommunications -
(2008) 11
,
SCC 579 shall not in any way infringed while suggesting
the way out for balancing the rights of the two groups of
employees referred to above based on the principles laid
down in this judgment.
21. We only direct that let both the groups be
represented by a representative body of not more than two
along with their lawyers on either sides in order to
ensure that the Expert Committee is able to deal with the
issue without much protraction and confusion apart from
the representation of lawyers on behalf of the
appellants. It will be appreciated if the Expert
Committee carries out the exercise and submit its Report
to this Court within a period of six months.
22. We leave it open to the Chairman of the Expert
Committee to determine the remuneration for himself, the
other member and the junior counsel which shall be paid
PAGE NO. 19 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
by the appellant B.S.N.L. It is also left to the Chairman
to appoint one or two junior counsel of his choice to
render necessary assistance for holding the proceedings
as well as for the preparation of the Report. It is also
left to the Chairman of the Expert Committee to decide
the venue for their hearing. It is needless to state that
B.S.N.L. should pay all their travel and hospitality and
other expenses of the Members of the Expert Committee as
well as their junior counsel and other assistants.
23. Intervenors who are stated to be applicants in IA
No.2 in SLP(C) NO. 5145 of 2012 are given liberty to
represent before the Expert Committee and the Expert
Committee take their stand also into account and their
grievances and if it requires to be dealt with and any
relief to be granted in their favour the same may be set
out or else state the grounds for rejection. We leave it
open to the Expert Committee to seek for any further
directions from this Court if need be.
24. IA Nos.5,6 and 7 in CA No. 1657 of 2015 @ SLP(C)
No. 5145 of 2012 are allowed. Cause title be amended
accordingly.
25. Leave granted in all the petitions for special
PAGE NO. 20 OF 21
CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
leave.
26. The appeals are disposed of as indicated above but
the matters shall be listed immediately after six months
on receipt of the Report from the Expert Committee solely
for the purpose of passing appropriate orders based on
the Report.
...................................J.
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
[ ]
...................................J.
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
[ ]
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 21, 2015.
PAGE NO. 21 OF 21
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION © NO. 1681 OF 2012
RAM SINGH ….. PETITIONER
VERSUS
M.T.N.L. & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
This Transfer Petition has been filed seeking
transfer of Writ Petition (C) No. 3059 of 2012 titled
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v. Sujan Singh & Ors.
pending before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi to this
Court to be heard along with Civil Appeal No. 5008 of 2012.
By a separate order, the aforesaid Civil Appeal has
been heard and disposed of along with other similar
matters. This Transfer Peittion is de-linked from the
above batch of matters. The records of the aforesaid case
be called for from the High Court.
List it immediately after the records are received
and numbered.
The Transfer Petition is allowed on the above terms.
...................................J.
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
[ ]
...................................J.
NEW DELHI [ ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ]
JANUARY 21, 2015.