PETITIONER: U.H. JADHAV & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/03/1999 BENCH: K.Venkataswami, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri JUDGMENT:
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.