http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SH. J.P.S. SAROHA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the Central  Administrative Tribunal,  Principal  Bench  New Delhi made on May 30, 1986 in O.A. No.173/1986.      The  admitted  position  is  that  appellant  No.1  was appointed as  a Junior  Scientific Assistant, Grade II on 30 67. He  was made  permanent on April 1, 1970 and was further promoted as  Senior Scientific  Assistant  on  1.10.1973  in Defence Research  and   Development Organisation.  Similarly the second  appellant was  appointed  as  Junior  Scientific Assistant, Grade  I on  6.6.1967 and  was made  permanent on April  1,   1970.  He  was  promoted  as  Junior  Scientific Assistant, Grade  I on  25.3.19?1. All  have held while they were  continuing   in   Defence   Research   &   Development Organisation (DRDO).  Subsequently, in  1976, the  Technical Committee (Engineer  Stores) was  constituted   and  it  was transferred so as to be under the charge of Director General of Inspection.  They were transferred within that Department and continued to be in the said Department. With effect from January 30,  1979, the Department was further trifurcated as Director  General  of  Inspection  and  Technical  Committee (Engineers Stores).  It would  appeal that  the  chances  of promotions accelerated  in DRDO.  The appellants, therefore, claimed repatriation  to the  DRDO from  Director General of Inspection. Since the respondents’ requests were not acceded to, they  filed O.A. in the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. Thus, this appeal by special leave.      It is  contended for  the appellants that by fortuitous circumstances, they have been posted in the Director General Inspection  and   in  the   Technical  Committee  (Engineers Stores). Since  common seniority was maintained prior to the trifurcation, they  had no  grievance for  their continuance under the  control of Director General of Inspection, At the time of  trifurcation,  though  the  Department  called  for option from Grade-I but to Grade-II Officers, no such option was given,  The appellants  said that this was against their wishes. They  cannot be  made to suffer the continuance in a transferee Department  and, therefore,  they are entitled to all the  benefits of promotions. When a person junior to him in DRDO  was confirmed  and promoted  to a  higher post, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

appellants claimed parity. Having regard to the contentions, the question  that arises  for consideration is: whether the non transfer  of the  appellants to  the DRDO is vitiated by any manifest  error warranting interference? It is seen that initially DRDO  and DGI  were two  separate  operations.  In respect of  the service  in Technical  Committee,  personnel were discharging  the respective duties assigned to them and the personnel therein were transferred to the administrative control of  the Director  General of  Inspection. The entire wing having been transferred, to be in the control of the Director General  of Inspection, necessary consequence would be that  the personnel  working there  would remain  in  the Department. It  is not  the case  of  the  transfer  of  the employees from one Department to other Departments on option basis. Under  these circumstances,  though the  persons have been appointed subsequent to them while they remained within the charge  of  DRDO  Department,  they  cannot  claim  that injustice has  been done to them. Under these circumstances, we think  that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference.      The appeal  is accordingly  dismissed. If there are any rights given  to them  and the  personnel similarly situated have given  accelerated, that  would be a different cause of action. The  appellants would  be free to avail of remedy as is available under the law.