9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Retrospective regularisation of service. 2. Equation of posts between Andhra and Telangana Engineers. 3. Seniority and gradation list finalisation. 4. Validity of tribunal's directions and jurisdiction. Summary: 1. Retrospective Regularisation of Service: The dispute centers on the retrospective regularisation of services of Engineers from the erstwhile State of Andhra in the cadre of Assistant Engineers/Supervisors, and whether such regularisation was valid. The Engineers from Andhra contended that their appointments, though delayed, should count from the date of their initial appointment. Telangana Engineers argued these appointments were temporary and should only count from the date of regularisation by the successor State. The Supreme Court noted the tribunal's findings that temporary appointments before 1.11.1956 should not be treated as stop-gap or fortuitous if the officers had completed probation and required service length. The Supreme Court upheld the retrospective regularisation as valid and legally permissible. 2. Equation of Posts: Telangana Engineers contended that the post of Sub-Engineer in Hyderabad should be equivalent to the post of Assistant Engineer in Andhra. The tribunal upheld the Central Government's decision on the equation of posts, stating it did not need re-examination, as it was an administrative function and not open to judicial reassessment. 3. Seniority and Gradation List Finalisation: The seniority/gradation list of officers remained unresolved due to interim judicial orders and administrative delays. The Supreme Court directed the finalisation of the common gradation lists based on the Central Government's findings with specific modifications. The tribunal's earlier decision in R.P. No.910/77, which became final, was to be implemented, and the State was directed to prepare and finalise the gradation list accordingly. 4. Validity of Tribunal's Directions and Jurisdiction: The tribunal, in its impugned judgment, reopened the question of retrospective regularisation, which was already decided in R.P. No.910/77. The Supreme Court held that the tribunal erred in reviewing its earlier decision and issuing directions for pro forma promotions and monetary benefits with interest. The tribunal's directions were found to be without jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of consistency and finality in judicial decisions. The Supreme Court set aside the tribunal's impugned order and upheld the retrospective regularisation and the gradation lists prepared on that basis. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, the judgment and orders of the tribunal were set aside, and the applications/petitions were dismissed. The retrospective regularisation of Andhra Engineers was upheld as valid, and the gradation lists prepared on that basis were deemed valid. The tribunal's directions for promotions and monetary benefits were quashed.
|
