1992 (4) TMI 262 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "posts" in the context of seniority.
2. Whether the benefit of continuous officiation towards seniority includes ex-cadre posts.
3. Adherence to the Supreme Court's directives in Narender Chadha's case.
4. Tribunal's interpretation and application of the Supreme Court's judgment.
5. Equity and discrimination in seniority determination.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the term "posts" in the context of seniority:
The Supreme Court had to determine whether the term "posts" used in its previous judgment in Narender Chadha's case referred exclusively to "cadre posts" or if it also included "ex-cadre posts." The Court clarified that its directions were "crystal-clear" and did not distinguish between cadre and ex-cadre posts. The Court emphasized that promotees should be treated as regular members of Grade IV from the day they continuously held posts in the said Service, regardless of whether these were cadre or ex-cadre posts.

2. Whether the benefit of continuous officiation towards seniority includes ex-cadre posts:
The Court reiterated that promotees are entitled to count their entire period of service in Grade IV posts towards seniority, whether these were cadre or ex-cadre posts. The Court noted that promotees had been performing duties and drawing salaries for over fifteen years and found it arbitrary to treat them as ad hoc. The Court's intention was to provide the benefit of continuous officiation to promotees irrespective of the nature of the posts they held.

3. Adherence to the Supreme Court's directives in Narender Chadha's case:
The Court reviewed its previous judgment in Narender Chadha's case, which had directed the Union Government to treat promotees as regularly appointed to Grade IV and assign them seniority from the date of continuous officiation. The Court noted that the promotees had been manning posts meant for direct recruits for over fifteen years and that the Departmental Promotion Committee had not met regularly. The Court found that the promotees should be given the benefit of their entire period of service towards seniority.

4. Tribunal's interpretation and application of the Supreme Court's judgment:
The Tribunal had interpreted the Supreme Court's judgment to mean that only promotees officiating against cadre posts were entitled to seniority benefits. The Supreme Court found this interpretation to be a "patent error" and "wholly perverse." The Court emphasized that its previous judgment did not distinguish between cadre and ex-cadre posts and that the Tribunal's reasoning was illogical and unjustified.

5. Equity and discrimination in seniority determination:
The Court highlighted that denying promotees the benefit of their ad hoc service would result in significant prejudice and discrimination. The Court noted that promotees had been performing the same duties and receiving the same salaries as regularly appointed officers and found it unjust to deprive them of seniority benefits. The Court emphasized that any other view would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and dismissed the applications filed by the respondents before the Tribunal. The Court reiterated that promotees are entitled to count their entire period of service in Grade IV posts towards seniority, regardless of whether these were cadre or ex-cadre posts. The Court emphasized the importance of equity and non-discrimination in seniority determination and found the Tribunal's interpretation to be erroneous and unjust.