http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: N.S. SEKHAWAT AND OTHERS ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/03/1989

BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) THOMMEN, T.K. (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR 1454            1989 SCR  (2)  14  1989 SCC  Supl.  (1) 270 JT 1989 (1)   577  1989 SCALE  (1)645

ACT:             Central    Reserve   Police   Force--Sensitive    Poli ce         Service--Duty  of  the Government to resolve  dispute  amo ng         members in public interest-Direct  recruits  and   Emergen cy         Commissioned  officers--Inter-se seniority--Fixation of.

HEADNOTE:             Central Reserve Police Force comprises of officers dra wn         from  two  channels, direct recruits and  Emergency  Commi s-         sioned Officers (ECOs). There was dispute regarding fixati on         of inter se seniority of these officers which was ultimate ly         resolved  by  the  Delhi High Court by  the  judgment  und er         appeal.  The  High Court by the impugned  judgment  held in         favour  of ECOs and directed implementation of its  decisi on         regarding seniority as also grant of benefits to ECOs. As  a         result of the High Court’s judgment 37 direct recruits,  w ho         are at present holding the posts of Commandants, that is to         say,  22 as Commandants (Selection Grade) and 15 as  Comma n-         dants  (Non-Selection Grade) by virtue of upgradation of 88         posts  of Commandants (Non-Selection Grade) will have to be         reverted. Being aggrieved by the High Court’s judgment, th ey         have appealed to this Court, after obtaining Special Leave .             The  main contention advanced by the appellants is  th

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

at         as they were not parties in the Contempt Proceedings where in         the  High Court has rendered the judgment in question,  th at         order  is  not binding upon them and as such the  matter be         remitted back to the High Court. To avoid delay that will be         caused in the matter if the case is sent back, the Court as         also  the parties desired that the dispute be amicably  se t-         tled.  Accordingly  both the direct recruits and  ECOs  he ld         negotiations amongst themselves with a view to arrive at an         acceptable  settlement and after a great deal of  endeavou r,         they  put  up the terms of agreement before the  Court.  T he         Court thereupon gave time to the Union of India to  consid er         the  acceptability  of  the agreement  reached  between  t he         contesting parties. The Union of India conveyed to the Cou rt         that the agreement was not acceptable to it though it was in         favour of amicable settlement. It suggested two other alte r-         natives, which were not found to be favourable to ECOs.         15             This  Court considered the respective terms of the  se t-         tlement and disposing of the appeals in terms thereof,             HELD:. Central Reserve Police Force is a sensitive for ce         and  there should not be any dispute and  differences  amo ng         the members of such force. It is the duty of the  Governme nt         to  maintain  peace and harmony in the force  by  trying to         resolve any dispute among the members of the force in publ ic         interest. [17B]             While  it may be desirable that the present position of         the direct recruits should be protected, the giving of  su ch         protection should not be to the prejudice of the ECOs. [17 E]             In  order to establish peace and amity between the  co n-         tending parties and for ends of justice, the Court  direct ed         that in modification of the judgment of the High Court,  t he         appeals  be  disposed  of in accordance with  the  terms of         settlement,  as  agreed to by the direct  recruits  and  t he         ECOs, set out in this Court’s judgment hereinbelow. [17E-F ]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

JUDGMENT:             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  1909- 10         of 1989.             From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.1987 of the  Del hi         High Court in C.C.P. Nos. 82 and 176 of 1986.         WITH         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 19 11 OF 1989.             From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.1987 of the  Del hi         High Court in C.C.P. No. 82 of 1986 in C.W. No. 44 of 1975 .             K.   Parasaran, Attorney General, K.K.  Venugopal,  F. S.         Nariman,  Gopal  Subramaniam, C.V.S. Rao,  P.  Parmeshwara n,         C.S. Vaidyanathan, S.R. Bhat, S.R. Setia, G.D. Gupta,  Ash ok         K. Mahajan and S. Ravinder Bhat for the appearing parties.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             DUTT,  J.  Special leave granted in all  these  matter s.         Heard learned Counsel for the parties.         The dispute between the direct recruits and the Emergency         16         Commissioned  Officers (ECOs) in the Central Reserve  Poli ce         Force  (CRPF) over the question of seniority has been  goi ng         on  for a long time. The Delhi High Court  has,  ultimatel y,         held in favour of the ECOs and by the impugned judgment, t he         High  Court has directed the implementation of its  decisi on         regarding  seniority and grant of consequential benefits to         the ECOs.             As  per  the judgment of the High Court, the  37  dire ct         recruits, who are now holding the posts of Commandants, th at         is  to  say, 22 as Commandants (Selection Grade) and  15 as         Commandants (NonSelection Grade), by virtue of the  upgrad a-         tion of 88 posts of Commandants (Non-Selection Grade),  wi ll         have  to be reverted. The direct recruits feel aggrieved by         the impugned judgment of the High Court and it is  contend ed         on  their behalf that as they were not parties in  the  co n-         tempt proceedings in which the impugned judgment of the Hi gh         Court  has been passed, it is not binding on them, and  th at         the  matter  should be remanded to the High Court so  as to         give  them an opportunity of being heard. If  these  conte

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

n-         tions  of  the direct recruits are accepted, there  will be         further delay.             It  may be mentioned that this is the second  time  th at         the  matter has come to this Court. It is the desire of  t he         parties  that  the dispute should be amicably  settled  an d,         pursuant to that desire, the parties including the Union of         India had, from time to time, given their respective sugge s-         tions regarding the terms of settlement. Unfortunately,  t he         suggestions  or  the proposed terms of settlement  were  n ot         accepted  by  one party or the other. The  terms  that  we re         suggested  by the Union of India were not acceptable to  t he         ECOs and those of the ECOs were not acceptable to the dire ct         recruits.             It is gratifying to state that at the last heating, bo th         the  direct recruits and the ECOs came with an agreed  ter ms         of settlement. The hearing was adjourned so as to enable t he         Union of India to consider the terms of settlement as agre ed         to by the direct recruits and the ECOs.             Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, the learned Counsel appearing on         behalf of the Union of India, states that although the Uni on         of  India is also of the view that the dispute  between  t he         parties  should  be resolved amicably, yet the  said  agre ed         terms of settlement were not acceptable to it and it has, in         lieu  of the same made two alternative suggestions for  se t-         tlement.  Copies  of the alternative suggestions  have  be en         produced before us by Mr. Subramaniam. Neither of the alte r-         na-         17         tive suggestions is, however, acceptable to the ECOs.             We have considered the respective terms of settlement as         put  forward by the parties including the said two  altern a-         tive suggestions. CRPF is a sensitive police force and the re         should not be any dispute and differences among the  membe rs         of such force. It is the duty of the Government to  mainta in         peace  and  harmony in the force by trying  to  resolve  a ny

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

       dispute among the members of the force in public interest.             After  considering  the facts and circumstances  of  t he         case  including the impugned judgment of the High Court  a nd         the terms of settlement, as agreed to by the direct recrui ts         and  the ECOs, and also the alternative suggestions  of  t he         Union of India, we are of the view that the terms of settl e-         ment,  as  agreed to by the direct recruits  and  the  ECO s,         appear  to  be fair and reasonable and do  not  involve  a ny         additional  financial  liability of the Union of  India  f or         placing  the 35 ECOs in the posts of Commandants  (Selecti on         Grade)  with  effect  from the date they  were  promoted as         Commandants (Non-Selection Grade), as provided in the agre ed         terms  of settlement. On an examination of the two  altern a-         tive  suggestions made on behalf of the Union of  India, we         are  of the view that they do not redress the grievances of         the ECOs. In our opinion, while it may be desirable that t he         present position of the direct recruits should be protecte d,         the giving of such protection should not be to the prejudi ce         of the ECOs.             In  the circumstances, in order to establish  peace  a nd         amity  between the contending parties and for ends  of  ju s-         tice, we direct that, in modification of the impugned  jud g-         ment  of the High Court, the appeals be disposed of  in  a c-         cordance  with the terms of settlement, as agreed to by  t he         direct recruits and the ECOs, as follows:            1. The Union of India shall withdraw the order viz. ord er         No. F.2/1O/86-Estt (CRPF) PP IV dated 18.6.1986 with immed i-         ate effect. The order providing for upgradation of 88  pos ts         of  Assistant  Commandant (2nd in-command) to  the  post of         Commandants (Non-Selection Grade) shall thus stand  rescin d-         ed.  The D.P.C. 1986 and all consequential orders  regardi ng         promotion against upgraded posts shall also stand revoked.            2.  To  protect the 37 direct recruits who  were  holdi ng         posts  of  Commandants, the Union of India shall  create 37         supernumerary posts of Commandants (22 as Commandant Selec

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

-         18         tion Grade and 15 as Commandant Non-Selection Grade),  whi ch         shall be held by the 37 direct recruits who were holding t he         said posts on the date of judgment dated 2.9.1985 passed by         the High Court of Delhi.            3.  The vacancies of 13 posts occurring in the year  19 86         of  Commandant (Non-Selection Grade) shall be filled  afre sh         by  means  of a D.P.C. The D.P.C. shall make  promotions in         accordance  with  rules and shall operate upon  the  revis ed         seniority  list prepared by the Department pursuant  to  t he         judgment  of the High Court dated 2.9.1985 affirmed by  th is         Court on 21.1.1986.            4.  The subsequent vacancies in the years 1987  and  19 88         for the posts of Commandants (Non-Selection Grade) shall be         filled in accordance with rules and the promotions shall be         made through D.P.C. in accordance with law/Rules.            5. The Union of India shall review the D.P.C. of 1985 f or         the posts of Commandants and such review shall be  complet ed         as early as possible.            6.  Further,  35 ECOs who have already been  promoted as         Commandant  (Non-Selection Grade) till today will  hold  t he         posts  of Commandant (Selection Grade), from the  date  th ey         were  promoted as Commandant (Non-Selection Grade) with  t he         condition that they will not be paid any salary for the po st         of  Commandant (Selection Grade) till their turn  comes  f or         promotion  to Commandant (Selection Grade)  against  regul ar         vacancies, as per the seniority list.         Each party to bear his/its own costs.         Y.L.                                          Appeals   di s-         posed of.         19