2013 (3) TMI 389 - SC - Central Excise

Cadre of Superintendents of Central Excise - three cadres were then having the ratio of 6 1 2 for promotion to Group A posts which have been subsequently revised and the new quota is in the ratio of 13 1 2. The new quota is made applicable prospectively - petitioners contend that this direction implies a retrospective application of the revised formula on the quota for each cadre, since the promotions effected in the meanwhile were on an ad hoc basis - Held that - The submission made on behalf of the petitioners is erroneous as the order did not state anywhere that the quota when changed will apply retrospectively. At best it could be said that according to the petitioners the implementation was not in conformity with the directions of this Court passed on 3.8.2011, but there is no disobedience, whatsoever, of the directions in making the newly formed quota applicable prospectively. All that the order dated 3.8.2011 says is that the ad hoc promotions made in the meanwhile will abide by the final decision to be taken by the Department in terms of Office Order.There is no direction to apply the new quota retrospectively. The contempt petitions are accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged breach of court order regarding promotion quotas for different cadres.
2. Interpretation of court directions on the application of revised promotion quotas.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses two contempt petitions filed alleging breach of a court order dated 3.8.2011 regarding promotion quotas for different cadres within the Central Excise and Customs departments. The petitioners from the Superintendents of Central Excise and Superintendents of Customs (Preventive) cadres claimed that the revised promotion quotas were not implemented retrospectively, leading to non-compliance with the court's directions.

2. The court noted that the initial promotion ratio for the three cadres was 6:1:2 and was subsequently revised to 13:1:2, applicable prospectively. The petitioners argued that the ad hoc promotions made during the interim period should have been governed by the revised quota retrospectively. However, the respondents contended that the court order did not mandate retrospective application of the new quota, and compliance was only required for final decisions post the order date.

3. The court examined the language of the court order and concluded that there was no explicit direction for retrospective application of the revised promotion quotas. The order merely stated that ad hoc promotions should abide by final decisions as per the office order. The court agreed with the Union of India and intervenors, emphasizing that the new quota was meant to apply prospectively, and there was no disobedience of the court's directions by the respondents.

4. In the absence of a specific directive for retrospective implementation of the revised promotion quotas, the court dismissed the contempt petitions, ruling that there was no contempt of the court's order dated 3.8.2011 by the respondents. The judgment clarified the scope of compliance with court directions and the prospective application of revised promotion quotas, settling the dispute regarding the interpretation of the court order in the context of promotion ratios for different cadres within the departments of Central Excise and Customs.