JUDGMENT
Khan, J.
1. Petitioners are whipping up a dead horse and
are wanting their pre-absorption service to be counted
towards their seniority with consequential benefits.
Their cause is age-old and has been declared so even by
the Supreme Court decades back but they still want to
reopen it by catching at straws.
2. Petitioners were originally appointed as LDCs
or in equivalent grades in the lower formations of the
Army between 1941-1948 and were later absorbed in the
Armed Forces Headquarters “AFHQ” from 1951-1958 after
being declared surplus. When they had joined service,
one Govt. Memo of 1949 provides for determination of
seniority on the basis of length of service. But
subsequently OMs dated 12-8-59 and 21-12-63 were issued
providing for counting of their service in LDC grade
from the date of their appointment in the “AFHQ” for
purposes of their seniority. They filed CWP Nos. 192 &
941/72 against this which were dismissed by order dated
22-4-76 on grounds of delay and latches. While doing so
the Court observed:-
“Both 1959 and 1963 Memorandum could not be
said to conform to the model provided by 1949 M.O.
and to the extent of inconsistency they are
invalid.
It also said:-
“This is therefore a strong case for an
executive review at an appropriate level within a
reasonable time…..”
3. Petitioner made representations on the
strength of this which were considered and decision
communicated to them on 1-2-1980. Petitioners filed CWP
No. 5942/80 against this before the Supreme Court which
was also dismissed by order dated 27-8-1987 observing
that the matters in dispute were stale.
4. While all this was going on, the “AFHQ”
clerical rules of 1968 were challenged by some employees
in CWP No. 423/75 claiming that seniority in the grade
of LDCs should be determined on the basis of length of
service and not on the date of confirmation. This
petition was allowed by judgment dated 8-4-81 and was
eventually affirmed by the Supreme Court in C.A. No.
4133/84 (D.P. Sharma v. UOI), benefit in whereof was also
extended later to writ petitioner in CWP No. 493/90
(R.K. Khosla v. UOI). In compliance to all this, a
seniority list dated 20-4-92 was issued under O.M.
dated 21-12-63 and promotions to the grade of UDC,
Asstt. and ACSO were reviewed on the basis of that.
5. Petitioners found a fresh cause in this and
filed OA No. 1782/92 which was dismissed and so was the
review taken against it. Hence this petition
representing petitioners last-ditch effort to revive the
otherwise dead issue.
6. While dismissing petitioners’ OA, Tribunal
noted:-
“Applicants seek to support this claim on
the basis of the Delhi High Court’s Single Bench
judgment dated 8.4.81 in CWP No. 423/75 and
connected cases, which was eventually upheld by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.P. Sharma’s case
(Supra), which was later extended in R.K. Khosla’s
case (Supra) and still later in H.L. Gauba’s case
(Supra), on the basis of which respondents
published the final seniority list of LDCs in AFHQ
on 20-4-92 but it must be remembered that in CWP
No. 423/75 the issue before the Delhi High Court
Single Bench was not whether LDCs who joined AFHQ
from lower formations in defense Ministry were to
be allowed to count their services outside AFHQ
for the purpose of seniority as LDCs in AFHQ or
not, but whether their seniority as LDCs in AFHQ
would count from the date of their joining AFHQ
(the principle of length of service) or from the
date of confirmation upon their passing the UPSC
typing test. It is the principle of length of
service (i.e. from the date of joining AFHQ)
which was upheld by the Delhi High Court Single
Bench in CWP No. 427/75 and was subsequently
upheld in D.P. Sharma’s case (Supra) and later
extended in R.K. Khosla’s case (Supra) and
H.L. Gauba’s case, on the basis of which
Respondents have issued their final seniority list
of LDCs in AFHQ on 20.4.92.
7. This should have answered petitioners’
grievance squarely, but their counsel, Mr. Garg has taken
a new route and is seeking enforcement of the
observation of this court in judgment dated 22.4.76
whereby petitioners’ CWPs 192 and 941/72 were dismissed
though observing that MO of 1962 was invalid for
inconsistency with Memorandum of 1949. He submits that
once it was declared invalid, it could not have been
acted upon again in drawing up the seniority list dated
20-4-92. The submission appears attractive on the face
of it but fails on scrutiny because petitioners overlook
that their writ petitions were dismissed and any
observation made in these by the Court was not
enforceable. Their cause stands sealed by the dismissal
of their petition on the subject matters by the Supreme
Court also. They should, therefore, reconcile to the
settled position and give up their chase for good.
Petition is dismissed with this.