U.H. Jadhav
& Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors [1999] INSC 65 (12 March 1999)
K.Venkataswami,
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri J U D G M E N T QUADRI,J.
Leave
is granted.
The
appellants filed these appeals against the common judgment and order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in Original Applications
Nos.425/92 and 259/93 dated December 6, 1995
by seeking permission of this Court as they were not parties to those original
applications. The grievance of the appellants is that without impleading them
in the said original applications the judgment of the Tribunal passed in their favour
in OA No.823/87 on July
11, 1991, was upset.
The appellants were recruited as Inspectors (O.G.) in the Central Excise
Department of Mumbai during the period 1973 to 1977 (hereinafter referred to as
`direct recruits'). They filed O.A. No.823/87 before the Central Administrative
Tribunal praying that the respondents therein be directed to give them
seniority on the basis of continuous officiation and other consequential
benefits. Their application was allowed by the Tribunal on 11.7.1991. For a
similar relief other direct recruits also filed OA No.425/92 on April 27, 1992.
Yet
another batch of direct recruits approached the Tribunal for similar relief by
filing O.A. No.259/93 in March 1993.
While
so the department challenged in this Court, by filing Special Leave Petition,
the said judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.823/87
dated 11.7.1991. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by this Court on
9.3.1993. It is also on record that persons who were promoted from the lower
post as Inspectors in the Central Excise Department, Mumbai (hereinafter
referred as `the promotees') and who were permitted to intervene in the said
Original Applications Nos. 425/92 and 259/93, filed before the Tribunal Review
Petition No.18/93 seeking review of the said judgment of the Tribunal dated
11.7.1991 in O.A. No.823/87. The Review Petition was also dismissed on October 20, 1993. In the meanwhile, the Collector of
Central Excise, Bombay-I notionally re-fixed the seniority
of the appellants in the cadre of Inspectors on 11.1.1993 and they were also
granted consequential promotion as Superintendent of Central Excise by order
issued by the Central Excise Department on 7.4.1994. However, on December 6, 1995, another Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, disagreeing with the judgment in the case of the
petitioners in O.A. No.823/87 dated 11.7.1991, dismissed O.A. No.259/93 and
O.A. No.425/92 on 27.4.1992. It is that judgment and order of the Tribunal that
is assailed as affecting the rights of the appellants. Mr.B. Parthasarthy,
learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the observations
made by the Tribunal with regard to its earlier judgment, in the case of the
appellants, in O.A. No.823/87 dated 11.7.1991, in the judgment under appeal
will prejudice the appellants' rights and therefore those observations have to
be set aside. Shri A.S.Nambiar, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents, supported the judgment under appeal on various grounds. We are not
inclined to go into the merits of the case as it is beyond the scope of these
appeals. Merely because the Tribunal has, in the judgment under appeal, taken a
view different from that taken in its judgment passed in O.A. No.823/87 dated
11.7.1991, the appellants cannot be allowed to question the same. However, so
far as the grievance of the appellants is concerned, there is no dispute that
the order of the Tribunal dated 11.7.1991 in O.A. No.823/87 has attained
finality as the challenge against that judgment failed before this Court in
view of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition on 9.3.1993 as also before
the Tribunal in view of the rejection of Review Petition No.18 of 1993 filed by
the promotees, the intervenors, in the cases under appeal, on October 20, 1993.
The
department has already implemented the said order of July 11, 1991 and given all consequential
benefits and promotion to the appellants. Further, a perusal of the judgment under
appeal shows that the promotees also reconciled themselves to the position
arising out of the judgment dated 11.7.1991 in O.A. No.823/87 insofar as it
relates to the appellants as is evident from their contention before the
Tribunal that nothing further should be done to prejudice the seniority of the promotees
who had already suffered on account of the seniority assigned in the case of
the appellants. Having regard to this position, it is obvious that the order
under appeal cannot affect the settled rights of the appellants. We are also
informed that against the impugned judgment dated December 6, 1995 and against
the order dated October 20, 1993 rejecting R.P.No.18/93 filed in the said O.A.
No.823/87 Special Leave Petition c Nos.17103-17104/96 and 20044-20045/96 were
also dismissed by this Court. The appeals are disposed of accordingly with the
above clarification. The parties are to bear their own costs.
Back