& Ors Vs. R.D. Kriston  INSC 302 (14 May 1993)
R.M. (J) Sahai, R.M. (J) Venkatachala N. (J)
1994 AIR 1280 1993 SCR (3) 756 1993 SCC (3) 182 JT 1993 (3) 371 1993 SCALE
Petition-Exercise of option by direct recruit Assistant Station
Masters-Directions issued by Court on 30th April 1990-Held, contempt petition
concerned with implementation of Court order, not whether the order passed by
it was correct or not.
dispute was about whether the exercise of option by Assistant Station Masters,
directly recruited, was a matter of choice or was compulsory. The order of this
court of 30 April 1990 inter alia protected the interests
of the applicants by holding that the 204/206 employees who had opted before
1983 must be entitled to the benefit which would have been available to them on
order was not implemented. It was argued for the condemner that the order of
this court would disturb seniority and may result in extending it to many
of the contempt petition, this court,
order dt. 30.4.90 left no ambiguity that these employees shall be treated
separately and would he granted the benefit that would have been available to
Court in contempt applications is concerned with the implementation of an order
passed by it, and not whether such order is correct or not.
the submission regarding seniority, nor that it may extend to others was raised
earlier, and if raised, they should be deemed to have been rejected. Even
earlier it had been made dear that no one promoted shall be disturbed.
757 4.Within 2 months, alternative 11 to be applied to 204/206 employees for
their placement and promotion. Future promotions may be governed by the present
alternative. Promotions and all benefits shall be given retrospectively. (758-H)
Cost to the applicants of Rs.5,000
APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Contempt Petition Nos. 130 & 195 of 1991.
Civil Appeal No. 2054 of 1990 From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.87 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta in T.A. No. 1263/86.
and Avijit Bhattacharjee for the Appellants.
Prakash, P. Narasimhan for B.K. Prasad, for the Respondents.
Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. SAHAI, J. Why the appellants should
have been forced to file these contempt applications for enforcement of the
order passed by this Court as far back as on 30th April 1990 in Civil Appeal No.2054 of 1990, is not without reason.
of the applicants is that despite clear findings recorded by this Court,
opposite parties are going back on it and persisting in the implementation of
the order in a manner which frustrates the entire purpose for which the
applicants approached this Court and is a clear violation of directions of this
Court issued on 30th
dispute centered round the practice of exercising option by Assistant Station
Masters who were recruited directly. Were they left any choice in the matter or
was it compulsory. It was held by this Court, that various letters issued made
it clear that the option had to be exercised at the time of appointment and
where no option was exercised it was deemed to have been exercised. This Court
found that the applicants were those persons who had to exercise option at the
time of appointment and their options were irrevocable. Effect of this was that
they had 758 to wait till 1983 when restructuring was done. The Court further
found that the cadre of Assistant Station Master/Station Master in South
Eastern Railway was separate and not combined. But the Chief Personnel Officer
applied alternative1, which under restructuring was to be applied to a zone
where combined cadre was in vogue, as it was acceptable to leaders of the Union
and was beneficial to large number of employees. The Court therefore did not
interfere with implementation of the alternatives, but protected the interest
of the applicants by holding thus "But both the employees unions have
accepted the implementation of the letter of Chief Personal Officer as it is
beneficial to a majority of the employees. Therefore, it may not be disturbed.
At the same time all those 204 employees who had opted before 1983 must be
entitled to the benefit which would have been available to them on their
options." What remained thereafter, which could not be clear to opposite
parties, cannot be appreciated. The order left no ambiguity that these
employees shall be treated separately and would be granted benefit which would
have been available to them. That was possible and obvious if alternative 11
was applied to them. It was for this reason that the Court directed to create
even additional posts.
was made by the learned senior counsel to urge that it shall disturb seniority
and may result in extending it to many others. We are afraid that this Court in
these applications is concerned with the implementation of the order passed by
it and not whether the order passed by it was correct or not. Neither of these
submissions were raised earlier and if had been raised, they should be deemed
to have been rejected. Even earlier it had been made clear that no one promoted
shall be disturbed.
therefore, direct opposite parties to implement the order of this Court in
respect of 204/206 employees by applying altemative-II to them for purposes of
determining their placement and promotion. After their placements and
promotions are so determined under alternative II then they may be governed by
the present alternative for future promotions. Six months' time was granted in
1990. The opposite parties have delayed it by nearly two and half years. We
direct the opposite parties to finalise it within two months from today. The
promotions and all benefits shall be given retrospectively. No application for
further extension by opposite parties shall be entertained. Failure to comply
with the directions shall not be treated lightly in future.
are not taking any action in the circumstances for the present. The contempt
applications are disposed of accordingly. But the respondents shall pay a sum
of Rs.5,000 as costs to the applicants.
Contempt Petition disposed of.