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

PETITIONER: U.H. JADHAV & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/03/1999

BENCH: K.Venkataswami, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri

JUDGMENT:

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

QUADRI,J.

       Leave is granted.

     The  appellants filed these appeals against the common judgment  and order of the Central Administrative  Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in Original Applications Nos.425/92 and 259/93  dated December 6, 1995 by seeking permission of this Court   as  they  were  not   parties  to   those   original applications.   The  grievance  of the  appellants  is  that without  impleading  them in the said original  applications the  judgment  of the Tribunal passed in their favour in  OA No.823/87  on July 11, 1991, was upset.  The appellants were recruited  as  Inspectors  (O.G.)  in  the  Central   Excise Department  of  Mumbai  during  the   period  1973  to  1977 (hereinafter  referred to as ‘direct recruits’).  They filed O.A.   No.823/87 before the Central Administrative  Tribunal praying  that  the respondents therein be directed  to  give them  seniority  on the basis of continuous officiation  and other consequential benefits.  Their application was allowed by  the  Tribunal on 11.7.1991.  For a similar relief  other direct  recruits also filed OA No.425/92 on April 27,  1992. Yet another batch of direct recruits approached the Tribunal for  similar relief by filing O.A.  No.259/93 in March 1993. While  so the department challenged in this Court, by filing Special  Leave  Petition, the said judgment of  the  Central Administrative  Tribunal in O.A.  No.823/87 dated 11.7.1991. The  Special  Leave Petition was dismissed by this Court  on 9.3.1993.   It  is  also  on record that  persons  who  were promoted  from  the lower post as Inspectors in the  Central Excise  Department,  Mumbai  (hereinafter referred  as  ‘the promotees’)  and who were permitted to intervene in the said Original  Applications Nos.  425/92 and 259/93, filed before the  Tribunal Review Petition No.18/93 seeking review of the said  judgment  of  the  Tribunal dated  11.7.1991  in  O.A. No.823/87.   The  Review  Petition  was  also  dismissed  on October  20,  1993.   In  the meanwhile,  the  Collector  of Central  Excise, Bombay-I notionally re-fixed the  seniority of  the  appellants in the cadre of Inspectors on  11.1.1993 and  they  were  also  granted  consequential  promotion  as Superintendent  of  Central  Excise by order issued  by  the Central Excise Department on 7.4.1994.  However, on December 6,  1995,  another  Bench  of  the  Central   Administrative

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

Tribunal,  disagreeing with the judgment in the case of  the petitioners  in  O.A.  No.823/87 dated 11.7.1991,  dismissed O.A.   No.259/93  and O.A.  No.425/92 on 27.4.1992.   It  is that  judgment and order of the Tribunal that is assailed as affecting   the   rights   of    the   appellants.     Mr.B. Parthasarthy,  learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted  that  the observations made by the Tribunal  with regard  to  its  earlier  judgment,  in  the  case  of   the appellants,  in  O.A.   No.823/87 dated  11.7.1991,  in  the judgment  under appeal will prejudice the appellants’ rights and therefore those observations have to be set aside.  Shri A.S.Nambiar,  learned  senior  counsel   appearing  for  the respondents,  supported the judgment under appeal on various grounds.   We are not inclined to go into the merits of  the case  as  it is beyond the scope of these  appeals.   Merely because  the  Tribunal  has, in the judgment  under  appeal, taken  a  view  different from that taken  in  its  judgment passed  in  O.A.  No.823/87 dated 11.7.1991, the  appellants cannot  be allowed to question the same.  However, so far as the  grievance  of the appellants is concerned, there is  no dispute  that  the order of the Tribunal dated 11.7.1991  in O.A.   No.823/87  has  attained finality  as  the  challenge against  that  judgment failed before this Court in view  of the  dismissal of the Special Leave Petition on 9.3.1993  as also  before the Tribunal in view of the rejection of Review Petition  No.18  of  1993  filed   by  the  promotees,   the intervenors, in the cases under appeal, on October 20, 1993. The  department  has already implemented the said  order  of July  11,  1991  and given all  consequential  benefits  and promotion  to  the  appellants.  Further, a perusal  of  the judgment   under  appeal  shows   that  the  promotees  also reconciled  themselves  to the position arising out  of  the judgment  dated  11.7.1991 in O.A.  No.823/87 insofar as  it relates  to  the  appellants  as   is  evident  from   their contention  before the Tribunal that nothing further  should be  done to prejudice the seniority of the promotees who had already suffered on account of the seniority assigned in the case  of the appellants.  Having regard to this position, it is  obvious  that the order under appeal cannot  affect  the settled rights of the appellants.  We are also informed that against  the  impugned judgment dated December 6,  1995  and against   the  order  dated   October  20,  1993   rejecting R.P.No.18/93 filed in the said O.A.  No.823/87 Special Leave Petition  c Nos.17103-17104/96 and 20044-20045/96 were  also dismissed  by  this  Court.   The appeals  are  disposed  of accordingly  with the above clarification.  The parties  are to bear their own costs.