1989 (3) TMI 381 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Promotion of Supervisors Grade 'A' to Chargeman II
2. Alleged Discrimination and Violation of Article 16
3. Compliance with Court Orders
4. Eligibility and Conditions for Promotion
5. Reliefs Sought by Petitioners

Summary:

1. Promotion of Supervisors Grade 'A' to Chargeman II:
The petitioners, appointed as Supervisors Grade 'A' between 1962 and 1966, sought the same relief granted by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981. They claimed that despite satisfactory service, they were not promoted to Chargeman II as per a circular dated 6th November 1962. The circular stated that Diploma holders should be promoted to Supervisor 'A' after one year and to Chargeman after two years of satisfactory service.

2. Alleged Discrimination and Violation of Article 16:
The petitioners argued that the non-promotion constituted discrimination under Article 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the earlier promotions were made under exceptional circumstances due to the expansion following the Chinese aggression. The subsequent rules and circulars, including an order dated 28th December 1965 and a circular dated 20th January 1966, required promotions to be based on selection by Departmental Promotion Committees and not merely on the completion of two years of service.

3. Compliance with Court Orders:
The petitioners in Civil Miscellaneous Petitions No. 3325 of 1987 and No. 9357 of 1983 contended that the direction given by the Supreme Court on 2nd February 1981 had not been fully complied with. They sought interim orders to restrain further promotions and to initiate contempt proceedings. The Supreme Court, however, found that the respondents had complied with the order by giving backdated promotions to the petitioners.

4. Eligibility and Conditions for Promotion:
The Supreme Court emphasized that promotions had to be made in accordance with the Indian Ordnance Factories (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Class III Personnel) Rules, 1956. The Court held that executive instructions like the circular dated 6th November 1962 could not override these Rules. The subsequent circulars had the effect of aligning promotions with the Rules, thereby eliminating the accelerated promotion based on the earlier circular.

5. Reliefs Sought by Petitioners:
The petitioners sought directions for their promotion to higher posts with effect from the dates they were entitled to, and for all consequential benefits, including arrears. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioners had already been promoted in due course and that the delay in filing the writ petitions (after nearly 17 years) weakened their case. The Court dismissed the writ petitions but directed that the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 be given the same benefits as granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which included notional seniority and re-fixation of present salary without retrospective financial benefits.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions but granted limited relief to the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981, ensuring they received the same benefits as those granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Court also declined to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents.