Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4799-4844 1997
PETITIONER:
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
A.P.JAISWAL & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/12/2000
BENCH:
U.C.Banerjee, S N Hegde, G.B.Pattanaik
JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
J U D G M E N T
SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
The State of Andhra Pradesh was formed w.e.f.
1.11.1956 by the integration of erstwhile State of Andhra
and the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. The constitution of
the new State of Andhra Pradesh with the merger of civil
service belonging to the two erstwhile States paved way for
disputes between the civil servants of the two merging
States and the present appeals are a group of one such
continuing dispute which has not yet found a solution.
These appeals involve the claim of the Engineers belonging
to the Departments of Public Works of the two States. The
dispute in particular pertains to the retrospective
regularisation of service of the Engineers belonging to the
former State of Andhra in the cadre of Assistant
Engineers/Supervisors etc. as also the equation of posts
then existing in the said Engineering services of the two
States. Dozens of petitions filed before the High Court and
the Service Tribunal, and over half a dozen visits to this
Court did not finally conclude the pending dispute between
the parties. Consequently, the seniority/gradation list of
these officers could not be finalised and the respective
seniority of the officers remained nebulous. Ad hoc
promotions given on the basis of various interim
arrangements added to the heartburn of the officers. Thus,
even after a lapse of over four decades, the officers
concerned are in the portals of this Court. Though in their
judgments the tribunals and the courts have repeatedly
blamed the State and the Central Government for the delay in
finalising the seniority/gradation list, fact still remains
that every attempt to finalise such list, though belatedly,
could not succeed because of the intervening judicial
orders. The blame for this protracted litigation should be
shared by everyone concerned equally. It will be our
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12
endeavour in these appeals to finalise all the pending
disputes between this group of litigants once and for all.
For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, it may
not be necessary for us to trace the history of this
litigation in its entirety. Suffice it to say that on the
formation of the new State of Andhra Pradesh, a number of
Engineers who were then holding the post of Assistant
Engineers/Supervisors temporarily stood transferred to the
new State. It is the contention of the Engineers from the
erstwhile State of Andhra that though they were regularly
appointed to clear vacancies, orders as to their regular
appointment were delayed by the Administration due to
administrative exigencies and for no fault of theirs, hence
ultimately when their services were regularised, they were
entitled to count their seniority in the initial grade from
the date of their original appointment and consequently in
the promoted cadres also. While the Engineers of the
erstwhile Hyderabad State (to be called Telangana
Engineers) contend that these Engineers of Andhra were
never appointed regularly, their appointments were temporary
and fortuitous, hence they were not entitled to count their
seniority on the basis of their initial service i.e. on the
basis of their date of initial appointment and their
seniority could be counted only from the date from which
their services were regularised by the successor State, and
also it was the contention of the Telangana Engineers that
the post of Sub-Engineer in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad
is equivalent to the post of Assistant Engineer of Andhra.
The State of Andhra Pradesh and the Union of India
took different decisions at different stages and ultimately
in the course of the litigation, the matter came up before
this Court when the aggrieved party challenged the order of
the tribunal dated 27.6.1980, and this Court as per its
decision dated 5.2.1981 gave the following directions :
(1) The Central Government will consider the rival
contention of Andhra Officers and Telangana Officers to
whether the services of the Andhra Officers were on stop-gap
and fortuitous arrangements.
(2) The Central Government will have to decide whether
the regularisation of promotions of Andhra Engineers and
relaxation of Rules had retrospective regularisation was
permissible.
(3) Whether the retrospective regularisation and
relaxation of rules will amount to any change in the
conditions of service or will result in denial of fair and
equitable treatment to any of the officers affected thereby.
The Central Government will reach a decision afresh after
affording an opportunity to the officers concerned and
submit its findings with reasons thereof to this Court
within two months.
As directed by this Court in the abovesaid decision,
the Central Government after hearing the officers concerned
submitted a report to this Court dated 10.7.1981 and after
considering the said report, this Court took the view that
the pending civil appeals could not be decided by it unless
the parties concerned were given an opportunity of placing
the respective contentions before the Administrative
Tribunal and also came to the conclusion that since the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12
tribunal while passing the impugned order, did not have the
benefit of the finding of the Central Government, it felt
that it could be eminently just and proper to set aside the
judgment of the Administrative Tribunal dated 27.6.1986 and
remand the matter to the said tribunal for fresh decision
and while doing so this Court specifically stated that it
was not expressing any opinion as to the correctness or
otherwise of the finding reached by the Central Government
or on the merits of the case or even on the judgment of the
tribunal which was under appeal. It thus left to the
tribunal to re-examine the correctness or otherwise of all
issues including the finding given by the Central Government
dated 10.7.1981. It further directed the tribunal to afford
all opportunities to the parties concerned to place their
respective claims and contentions on merits in the form of
additional pleadings with respect to the latest decision of
the Central Government. Thus, the ball was transferred once
again to the tribunal. On remand, the tribunal took up for
consideration the matter all over again in R.P. No.910/77
and other connected matters. In this bout of litigation,
the tribunal framed the following questions for its
consideration :
The main points on which there is controversy between
Andhra and Telangana Region Officers are as follows:
(A) Whether appointments of the Andhra Engineers under
Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of Madras/Andhra State and Subordinate
Service Rules prior to 1.11.1956 were a stop-gap and
fortuitous arrangement;
(B) Whether the retrospective regularisation of the
services of the Andhra Engineers referred to in item (A)
ordered by the Andhra Government after 1.11.1956 was valid;
(C) Whether those of the Andhra Engineers whose
services were so regularised could be allowed to count
temporary service as Junior Engineers, Draughtsmen for the
purpose of eligibility to be promoted as Assistant Engineers
as required in Rule 5 of the Special Rules for the Madras
Engineering Service and where the claim that Rule 6 of the
Special Rules which authorised the State Government to
promote officers who had not completed 5 years service as
Junior Engineers could be availed of in the case of the
concerned Andhra Engineers;
(D) The Telangana Officers have also questioned the
final decision of the Central Government on the question of
equation of posts.
The question of regularisation of temporary Andhra
Engineers transferred to the new State of Andhra Pradesh was
discussed by the tribunal in this round of litigation with
regard to all its facets as it was argued before it and in
regard to the points which arose for its consideration, the
tribunal considered the arguments elaborately and came to
the following conclusion and issued appropriate directions
:-
To sum up, our findings on the various issues
discussed earlier in this part are as follows: (1) As
regard the question whether the appointments of the Andhra
Officers who were appointed temporarily under Rule 10
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12
(a)(i)(1) of the Madras/Andhra State and Subordinate Service
Rules were a stop-gap and fortuitous arrangements, it is our
opinion that the temporary appointments made before
1.11.1956 of only those officers who were not fully
qualified for appointment by 1.11.1956 and in whose case,
therefore, it would not have been possible for the State
Government without relaxation of the rules relating to
probation and length of service to make a reference to the
Public Service Commission before 1.11.1956 for approval of
their temporary appointments, should be treated as having
been made as a stop-gap or fortuitous arrangement. We
consider that the findings of the Central Government in this
respect should be implemented with the modification that the
services of those Andhra Officers who had satisfactorily
completed their probation and also had the required length
of service in lower rank before 1.11.1956 should not be
treated as having been made as a stop-gap or fortuitous
appointment even if the approval for the Public Service
Commission had not been obtained in their case before
1.11.1956. The common gradation lists of Assistant
Engineers, Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineers
should be finalised on the basis of the Central Governments
finding with the modification mentioned above. If there are
any gaps in the period of temporary service before 1.11.1956
and if on examination of such gaps it is discovered that
they were due to reasons which could show that the earlier
period of appointment was purely stop-gap or fortuitous then
such earlier periods should be excluded from the period
which could be counted for seniority. (2) We consider that
the retrospective regularisation by the State Government of
the services put in by the Andhra Engineers who had been
appointed temporarily under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) before
1.11.1956 should be treated as provisional and should be
reviewed after the finalisation of the common gradation
lists in the manner stated above and if it is discovered
that any particular Telangana Officers are entitled, on the
basis of their seniority in the common gradation lists, to
be considered for appointment to any vacancies which had
occurred before 1.11.1956, the State Government should
revise the retrospective regularisation orders of the
concerned Andhra Officers so as to make room for the
Telangana Officers who might have any claim to be appointed
in such vacancies. (3) We are of the opinion that the
Central Governments finding that for the purpose of
counting the minimum necessary service in the lower rank
required for acquiring eligibility to be promoted to the
next higher rank, only regular service in the lower rank
should be taken into consideration is quite equitable and
fair. We also consider that the provisions of Rule 6 of the
Special Rules, which permits the State Government to make
appointments to the posts of Asst. Engineers of those
persons who had not satisfied the requirements of Rule 5 of
the Special Rules is only enabling provision and does not
make the provisions of Rule 5 redundant. Hence, it would
not be correct to state that all those appointed as
Assistant Engineers without satisfying the requirement of
Rule 5 could be treated as having been appointed under Rule
6. (4) We consider that in regard to the equation of posts
the decision of the Central Government does not need any
re-examination.
While coming to this conclusion, it observed that all
services under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) are not necessarily of a
stop gap and fortuitous nature although initially the
appointments in some cases may have been intended to be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12
temporary in nature and the concerned authorities have
subsequently examined the nature of service during the
period in which a person held the appointment under the
abovesaid Rule and have regularised such portions of their
services as is considered by them to be neither stop-gap nor
fortuitous. It also held that it is quite clear that the
temporary appointment of Andhra officers before 1.11.1956
could not have been a part of stop gap or fortuitous
arrangement because the arrangement was in most case, of a
long term nature and that it is clear that the length of
service put in by the Andhra officers in any category in
consequence of the temporary appointments before 1.11.1956
cannot be summarily excluded for the purpose of counting the
length of continuous service put in by them in that category
as being made in a purely stop gap or fortuitous
arrangement. It further held that in its opinion the
temporary appointments of all Andhra officers who by
1.11.1956 had satisfied all the requirements of the Rules
regarding compulsory completion of probation and completion
of length of service in the lower rank have to be treated as
not having been made as a stop gap or fortuitous
arrangement. In regard to the equation of posts, it came to
the conclusion that the said exercise is purely an
administrative function and in the ordinary course, it is
not open to the court to consider whether the equation of
posts made by the Central Government is right or wrong. The
area available for judicial interference in such executive
action, according to the tribunal, was to find out whether
the four principles agreed upon at the Chief Secretaries
Conference have been properly taken into account or not.
Apart from this narrow area, it held that the courts have no
jurisdiction to re-assess the decision arrived at by the
Central Government, thus upheld the equation undertaken by
the Central Government.
It also rejected the argument of the Telangana
Engineers that by retrospective regularisation of the Andhra
officers, there has been any violation of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution, and further held that the State
Government concerned was competent to issue the said
regularisation order as per the prevailing Rules. It also
rejected the contention of the Telangana Engineers that the
act of regularisation of Andhra officers was opposed to the
States Reorganisation Act. It, however, held that as
decided by the Central Government, these Andhra Engineers
were not entitled to count the temporary service for the
purpose of Rule 5 of the special Rules and such temporary
period cannot be counted for seniority in the gradation list
of the Andhra and Telangana officers. But for this limited
exclusion the Andhra Engineers were held to be entitled to
count their seniority from the date of their initial entry
into service in the erstwhile State of Andhra. Against the
said decision of the tribunal delivered in RP No.910/77, the
aggrieved parties preferred Special Leave Petitions before
this Court. In the said petitions, this Court vide its
order dated 26.10.1987 held thus :-
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal rendered a
decision in 1982 (R.P.No.910/77 and 1051/78) by a three
member Bench in regard to employees of the State Government
in the category of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers.
In the absence of any challenge to the Judgment of the
Administrative Tribunal, it became final and the State
became obliged to give effect to it in due course.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12
In 1984 a coordinate bench of the Tribunal adopted a
differential view in regard to the same matter. A challenge
has been raised against that decisions and the matter is
pending in this Court. The question that arises for
consideration now is whether the decision of 1982, which
became final, should or should not be implemented. In the
absence of any impediment in the matter of implementation of
the 1982 decision, we see no reason why implementation
should be delayed. After all the decision has become final
and is binding on parties including the State Government.
No contrary direction has been given by this Court in the
other matter, which is still pending.
In the circumstances, we do not want to entertain the
special leave petitions and would like to reiterate that the
decision of the Tribunal rendered in 1982 be enforced only
subject to any other direction that may be given by this
court while disposing of the pending matter. The State
Government is directed to fully implement the order of 1982
as indicated above within a period of six months from today.
We hope and trust that this order will be allowed to be
implemented and no order may be made by any other court to
restrain the implementation of this order.
Thus, we notice that the order made by the tribunal in
RP No.910/77 came to be approved by this Court as having
become final. After the orders of this Court in the above
Special Leave Petitions and taking into consideration the
directions of the Tribunal in R.P.No.910/77 the Government
of Andhra Pradesh prepared a fresh provisional common
gradation list dated 3.10.1985 of the Assistant Engineers
and called for objections. It is stated that after
considering the objections and receiving the approval of the
State Government, it finalised a common gradation list in
the category of Assistant Engineers and the same was issued
on 22.5.1989. Subsequently, as it was found that there was
some mistake in regard to 11 Assistant Engineers in the
abovementioned list, a supplementary list dated 22.8.1992
was issued. Similarly, a final common gradation list in
respect of juniors/supervisors was also issued on 21.9.1992.
Having not been satisfied with the said gradation list
prepared consequent to the directions issued by the tribunal
in R.P. No.910/77, as approved by this Court, the Telangana
officers came back to the tribunal once again by way of a
batch of petitions numbered as R.P. No.2089/89 and
connected matters seeking quashing of the impugned gradation
list and praying for consequential benefits. It is to be
noted that by the time these petitions were preferred before
the tribunal, nearly 33 years had already gone by and
naturally most of the Engineers who were in service on
1.11.1956 had retired by then and the object of litigation
had boiled down to the entitlement of consequential benefits
only. In this batch of petitions before the tribunal,
almost similar contentions as those raised before the
tribunal in RP No.910/77 were again raised. Primarily, it
was contended that the retrospective regularisation of the
services of Andhra Engineers was bad in law, hence,
seniority assigned to them in the impugned gradation list
based on such regularisation is unsustainable in law. They
also questioned the non-equation of Telangana sub-Engineers
with the Assistant Engineers of Andha. It was also
contended that there was phenomenal delay in preparation of
these gradation lists. Consequently, many of their
promotions were denied to them. It was also the argument on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12
behalf of Telangana Engineers that as per the existing Rules
of Madras Engineering Service, the appointments of the
Andhra Engineers who stood transferred to the new State of
Andhra Pradesh, not having been regularised at the time of
merger, the said appointments were only temporary and
fortuitous, hence they could not have been treated as
permanent Engineers for which reliance was placed on Rules
10 and 39 of the abovesaid Rules.
In the impugned judgment before us now, the tribunal
came to the conclusion that the finding given by the earlier
Bench in RP No.910/77 was only provisional, hence it
proceeded to reconsider all those questions once again
independently and came to the conclusion that the power
conferred under Rules 10 and 39 of the Madras Rules is a
power coupled with a duty to act reasonably and fairly on
relevant material. It held that the said power cannot be
exercised to alter the list of approved candidates prepared
by the Public Service Commission for direct recruitment or
even recruitment by transfer by giving any earlier date of
commencement of probation to those lower in the ranking
list. It also held that the said power cannot be exercised
for affecting the rights of persons already on probation in
the service. It reiterated that the power conferred on the
Government cannot be exercised to give a date of
commencement of probation without the existence of a vacancy
in the cadre to be filled up from that particular source of
appointment, namely, the various categories mentioned in
Rule 2 in the ratio prescribed. It also came to the
conclusion that without these essential ingredients
existing, the theory of power of retrospective
regularisation of the services will sabotage the scheme of
Rules and also the concept of seniority and also violates
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. With the above
finding, the tribunal by the impugned judgment held that in
view of the prevailing circumstances, the occasion to the
Government to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 23A
did not arise, and inspite of the same the Government did
exercise the power under Rule 23 giving retrospective
regularisation of services of Andhra Engineers which is not
contemplated by any statutory provision. It held that by
retrospective regularisation, all Junior Engineers and
Supervisors in the feeder category coming only from Andhra
State stood to benefit by which process the Government had
ignored the rights of Telangana Engineers and this,
according to the tribunal, was contrary to the earlier
judgment in R.P. No.910/77. It levelled a serious charge
on the State Government for delaying the preparation of the
common gradation list. On the above basis, it came to the
specific conclusion that the Andhra Engineers who were
transferred to the new State of Andhra Pradesh on its merger
on 1.11.1956 who came in as temporary Engineers could not
have had the benefit of regularisation of their services by
the successor State since they were persons holding
temporary, ad hoc and fortuitous posts. It held that under
the existing Rules, the Governments concerned did not have
the power to make such retrospective regularisation and
those regularisations, when effected, would affect the
rights of other allottees to that State and also will be in
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It
also specifically held that the Sub-Engineers of Telangana
ought to have been equated with the Assistant Engineers of
Andhra.
Having found that the quashing of the lists based on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12
the above finding would be futile, the tribunal by the
impugned order directed to promote the
applicant/petitioner-Engineers before it from a date on
which the Andhra Engineers whose regularisations were
challenged before it, were so promoted to different posts in
the hierarchy of PWD. It also directed that they should be
paid all consequential monetary benefits with 10% interest
on such amount payable. It also issued different directions
in the connected matters based on its findings in the main
matter.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the tribunal
dated 14.7.1985 made in R.P. No.2089/89 and other connected
matters, the State of Andhra Pradesh has preferred the
abovenoted civil appeals by leave of this Court. We have
heard Shri P.P.Rao, learned Senior Advocate for the
appellant, Shri Subodh Markandeya, learned senior Advocate
for some of the contesting respondents, Shri K.Anant Reddy
and some other respondents-in-person. We had permitted the
parties to submit written submissions which have been filed.
In the written submissions filed on behalf of the
respondents appearing in person, a statement is made that
they were not heard sufficiently by us. We must record that
this statement is factually incorrect. After we heard the
learned counsel for the appellant, we did hear the
individual respondents-in-person to the extent we thought it
necessary. It is only when we found that the arguments
addressed were not to the point and there was digression, we
restricted the arguments of the parties in person but gave
them opportunity to file their written submissions which we
have perused. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel
appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh contended that the
tribunal by the impugned order has practically sat in review
against the judgment delivered by an earlier coordinate
Bench of the same tribunal which he contends is without
jurisdiction inasmuch as the points which have been finally
decided by the tribunal in R.P. No.910/77 having attained
finality, same could not have been reopened by the successor
Bench. He also contended that the tribunal by the impugned
order erred in issuing a mandamus to the State Government to
straightaway grant pro forma promotions to the applicants
before the tribunal and further direct payment of
retrospective monetary benefits with interest. He contended
that courts normally do not have such power of directing
promotions. He also contended that the various directions
issued in other connected matters are based on the question
of retrospective regularisation granted to Andhra Engineers
and based on the erroneous equation of Sub-Engineers of
Telangana. Hence, if his argument in regard to these points
is correct, none of these applicants/petitioners will be
entitled to any such direction. On the contrary on behalf
of the respondents, it was contended that the tribunal in
the impugned order was justified in holding that the
retrospective regularisation of the Andhra Engineers was
illegal, without authority of law and opposed to Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution. It was further argued that
various directions issued by this Court in the earlier cases
were ignored by the Government in preparing the gradation
list and by the ranking assigned to the Telangana Engineers
in the gradation list, great injustice is caused to them and
all their promotional prospects were destroyed and they were
put to great humiliation of having to work under their
juniors. They contended that it was because of the enormous
delay caused in preparing the gradation list that many of
them could not get timely promotions, hence had to retire
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12
without the legitimately due promotions, so the tribunal was
justified in directing the pro forma promotions and also the
issuance of direction to pay the consequential monetary
benefits. In deciding the question whether the tribunal in
the impugned order was justified in reopening the question
earlier decided by the tribunal in R.P.No.910/77, we will
have to first decide the question whether the finding of the
tribunal in R.P.910/77 was final or not, and if so, to what
extent. In this process even at the cost of repetition, we
will have to consider what exactly the tribunal in
R.P.No.910/77 decided and what is the finding of the
tribunal in the impugned order. The tribunal as per its
earlier order in R.P.910/77 came to the specific conclusion
that the temporary appointments of the Andhra Officers made
before 1.11.1956 could not have been a part of stop-gap or
fortuitous arrangement. It also held to so treat these
appointments would be discriminatory merely because the
State Government did not obtain the approval of the Public
Service Commission for these appointments prior to
1.11.1956. Therefore, the tribunal in that case was of the
final opinion that those temporary Andhra Officers who by
1.11.1956 satisfied all the requirements of the rules
regarding completion of probation should be treated not as a
stop-gap and fortuitous arrangement. The tribunal also held
that it was satisfied that it would be perfectly in
accordance with the principles laid down at the Chief
Secretaries Conference to count for seniority the temporary
services rendered by such officers. It was also the opinion
that such regularisation was in no way contrary to the
States Reorganisation Act and that such regularisation was
necessary in the interest of equity and justice. In regard
to the question of equation of posts involved, it held that
the decision of the Central Government did not require any
interference, but to a limited extent, the said tribunal
held that as and when the gradation list was finalised, if
it was discovered that the Telangana Officers were entitled
to be considered for appointment to any vacancy which had
occurred before 1.11.1956, the State Government should
revise the retrospective regularisation orders of such
Andhra Officers so as to make room for the Telangana
officers who may have a claim to be appointed to such
vacancies on the basis of their seniority in the common
gradation list. In our opinion, by this finding the earlier
Bench of the tribunal specifically held that the
regularisation of the temporary services of qualified Andhra
Officers with retrospective effect was legally valid. It,
however, left open the question of fixing the seniority of
Andhra Engineers vis-a-vis Telangana Engineers taking into
consideration the fact whether Telangana Engineers had any
claim to be appointed to any vacancy prior to 1.11.1956
based on the ranking obtained by them in the common
gradation list. The tribunal by the impugned order took a
totally divergent view as to the validity of such
retrospective regularisation. It held that the power under
Rules 10, 23(a) and 30 of the Madras Rules which governed
the situation at the relevant point of time did not provide
for retrospective regularisation. It held that these rules
which confer power are coupled with duty to act reasonably.
Based on the above conclusion, this Bench of the tribunal
held: Without these essential ingredients existing, the
theory of power of retrospective regularisation of services
will sabotage the scheme of the rules and also concept of
seniority and also violating the articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. It also held the Government guilty of delay
in preparation of gradation list. These findings of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12
subsequent Bench of the tribunal in the impugned judgment
were rendered proceeding on a basis that the earlier finding
of the tribunal was only provisional. We have already
noticed that there is no room for coming to such conclusion
and that the finding of the earlier Bench of the tribunal
was a conclusive finding and what was said to be provisional
in that judgment was only the question of applying the
effects of the said retrospective regularisation while
considering the allotment of seniority in the gradation list
to be prepared. In other words, with reference to such
Telangana Engineers who had not acquired any right to hold
any particular post prior to 1.11.1956, they will be placed
below the Andhra Engineers who got an earlier date of entry
into service because of the retrospective regularisation.
Therefore, in our opinion, the subsequent Bench of the
tribunal could not have reopened the main judgment.
question of retrospective regularisation by the impugned
Consistency is the cornerstone of the administration of
justice. It is consistency which creates confidence in the
system and this consistency can never be achieved without
respect to the rule of finality. It is with a view to
achieve consistency in judicial pronouncements, the courts
have evolved the rule of precedents, principle of stare
decisis etc. These rules and principles are based on public
policy and if these are not followed by courts then there
will be chaos in the administration of justice, which we see
in plenty in this case. This Court in the case of S.I.
Rooplal and Anr. vs. Lt. Governor through Chief
Secretary, Delhi & Ors. (1999 7 Scale 466) held thus :
At the outset, we must express our serious
dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a
Coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect,
an earlier judgment of another Coordinate Bench of the same
tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial
discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal
was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the
Coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it
ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that
the difference of opinion between the two Coordinate Benches
on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if
the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier
Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said
judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents
which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of
administration of justice under our system. This is a
fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a
Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in
interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in
our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and
again precedent law must be followed by all concerned;
deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known
to law. A subordinate court is bound by the enunciation of
law made by the superior courts. A Coordinate Bench of a
Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of
law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger
Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement.
Applying the above principle to the facts of the case
in hand, in our opinion, the tribunal in the impugned
judgment has erred in reopening the question of
retrospective regularisation of Andhra Engineers. The
tribunal, in this case, after holding that retrospective
regularisation of Andhra Engineers to be erroneous committed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12
another error in proceeding to grant relief to the
respondents without quashing the gradation list. In this
regard, it held in view of the fact that the respondents had
already retired, no purpose will be served by quashing the
list, therefore, it directed the Government to treat the
Telangana Engineers as seniors to the Andhra Engineers of
the same cadre and issued a further direction to give these
Telangana Engineers pro forma promotions at various stages
which were given to their Andhra counterparts and then to
pay all consequential monetary benefits with interest @ 10%.
These directions, in our opinion, are without jurisdiction.
Under the service conditions applicable to the respondents,
there is no absolute right to them for promotion from stage
to stage. They only had right to be considered for such
promotion as and when a vacancy arose. Assuming for
arguments sake that the tribunal in the impugned judgment
was justified in holding that the respondents were entitled
to seniority over their Andhra counterparts even then it
could not have straightaway directed their promotion and
granted them all consequential monetary benefits, that too
with interest. This Court has held in a number of cases
that the courts cannot issue a mandamus to promote. In the
case of State of Mysore & Anr. vs. P.N.Nanjundiah & Anr.
(1969 3 SCC 633), this Court held as follows: As to the
issuance of mandamus by the High Court, the High Court ought
not to issue writs directing the State Government to promote
the aggrieved officers with retrospective effect. The
correct procedure for the High Court was to issue a writ to
the State Government compelling it to perform its duty and
to consider whether having regard to his seniority and
fitness the 1st respondent should have been promoted on the
relevant date and so what consequential benefits should be
allowed to him. This decision has been consistently
followed by this Court in a catena of other cases. We are
sorry to note that the tribunal did not apply these
principles in the instant case. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that the tribunal by the impugned order grossly
erred in directing the promotions of the respondents as also
the payment of consequential monetary benefits. We having
held the retrospective regularisation of the Andhra
Engineers as valid, the gradation lists prepared on that
basis, therefore, must be held to be valid gradation lists.
The impugned order of the tribunal holding otherwise has to
be set aside. In view of this finding of ours, the
consequential relief granted to the applicants in the main
batch of petitions has to be quashed, and it is ordered
accordingly. The Tribunal has also issued some specific
directions in favour of the applicants in O.A. No.
37144/90 and other connected matters considered by it in the
impugned judgment. These directions are also issued
consequent to its finding in the main issue, namely, the
retrospective regularisation of Andhra Engineers. If the
said retrospective regularisation is valid, as held by us,
then the applicants in the above connected cases also will
not be entitled to any such directions as have been issued
in the impugned orders. Therefore, the directions issued in
these cases also will have to be set aside so far as they
are dependent on the question of retrospective
regularisation of the concerned Andhra Engineers.
Accordingly, these appeals are allowed, the judgment and
orders impugned in these appeals are set aside and the
applications/petitions from which these appeals arise are
dismissed. No order as to costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12