http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: S. SARKAR & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: R.D. KRISTON, CHAIRMAN RLY. BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN, NEWDELHI AND

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/05/1993

BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1994 AIR 1280            1993 SCR  (3) 756  1993 SCC  (3) 182        JT 1993 (3)   371  1993 SCALE  (2)969

ACT: Contempt  Petition-Exercise  of  option  by  direct  recruit Assistant Station Masters-Directions issued by Court on 30th April   1990-Held,   contempt   petition   concerned    with implementation of Court order, not whether the order  passed by it was correct or not.

HEADNOTE: The  dispute  was about whether the exercise  of  option  by Assistant Station Masters, directly recruited, was a  matter of  choice or was compulsory. The order of this court of  30 April  1990  inter  alia  protected  the  interests  of  the applicants  by  holding that the 204/206 employees  who  had opted  before  1983 must be entitled to  the  benefit  which would have been available to them on their options. The  order  was  not  implemented. It  was  argued  for  the condemner  that  the  order  of  this  court  would  disturb seniority and may result in extending it to many others. Disposing of the contempt petition, this court, HELD : 1. The order dt. 30.4.90 left no ambiguity that these employees  shall be treated separately and would he  granted the benefit that would have been available to them. (758-D) 2. The Court in contempt applications is concerned with  the implementation  of  an order passed by it, and  not  whether such order is correct or not. 3.Neither  the submission regarding seniority, nor  that  it may extend to others was raised earlier, and if raised, they should be deemed to have been rejected.  Even earlier it had been  made  dear that no one promoted  shall  be  disturbed. (758-F) 757 4.Within  2 months, alternative 11 to be applied to  204/206 employees   for  their  placement  and  promotion.    Future promotions may be governed by the present  alternative.  Promotions and all benefits shall  be given retrospectively. (758-H) Cost to the applicants of Rs. 5,000

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Contempt Petition Nos.  130  & 195 of 1991.                          IN                Civil Appeal No. 2054 of 1990 From  the  Judgment and Order dated 23.1.87 of  the  Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta in T.A. No. 1263/86. G.S. Chatterjee and Avijit Bhattacharjee for the Appellants. Dr.  Anand Prakash, P. Narasimhan for B.K. Prasad,  for  the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. SAHAI, J. Why the appellants should have been forced to file  these  contempt applications for  enforcement  of  the order passed by this Court as far back as on 30th April 1990 in Civil Appeal No.2054 of 1990, is not without reason. Grievance  of the applicants is that despite clear  findings recorded  by this Court, opposite parties are going back  on it  and persisting in the implementation of the order  in  a manner  which  frustrates the entire purpose for  which  the applicants approached this Court and is a clear violation of directions of this Court issued on 30th April 1990. Entire  dispute  centered round the practice  of  exercising option  by  Assistant  Station Masters  who  were  recruited directly.  Were they left any choice in the matter or was it compulsory.  It was held by this Court, that various letters issued made it clear that the option had to be exercised  at the time of appointment and where no option was exercised it was  deemed to have been exercised.  This Court  found  that the applicants were those persons who had to exercise option at   the  time  of  appointment  and  their   options   were irrevocable.  Effect of this was that they had 758 to  wait till 1983 when restructuring was done.   The  Court further   found   that  the  cadre  of   Assistant   Station Master/Station Master in South Eastern Railway was  separate and  not combined.  But the Chief Personnel Officer  applied alternative1, which under restructuring was to be applied to a  zone  where  combined  cadre was  in  vogue,  as  it  was acceptable  to  leaders of the Union and was  beneficial  to large  number  of employees.  The Court  therefore  did  not interfere  with  implementation  of  the  alternatives,  but protected the interest of the applicants by holding thus               "But  both the employees unions have  accepted               the  implementation  of the  letter  of  Chief               Personal  Officer  as it is  beneficial  to  a               majority of the employees.  Therefore, it  may               not be disturbed.  At the same time all  those               204  employees who had opted before 1983  must               be  entitled to the benefit which  would  have               been available to them on their options." What  remained  thereafter,  which could  not  be  clear  to opposite parties, cannot be appreciated.  The order left  no ambiguity  that these employees shall be treated  separately and would be granted benefit which would have been available to  them.  That was possible and obvious if  alternative  11 was applied to them.  It was for this reason that the  Court directed to create even additional posts. Attempt was made by the learned senior counsel to urge  that it shall disturb seniority and may result in extending it to many  others.   We  are  afraid that  this  Court  in  these applications  is  concerned with the implementation  of  the order  passed by it and not whether the order passed  by  it was  correct  or  not.  Neither of  these  submissions  were raised earlier and if had been raised, they should be deemed to have been rejected.  Even earlier it had been made  clear that no one promoted shall be disturbed.

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

We,  therefore,  direct opposite parties  to  implement  the order  of  this  Court in respect of  204/206  employees  by applying  altemative-II to them for purposes of  determining their  placement and promotion.  After their placements  and promotions are so determined under alternative II then  they may  be  governed  by the  present  alternative  for  future promotions.   Six  months’ time was granted  in  1990.   The opposite  parties  have delayed it by nearly  two  and  half years.  We direct the opposite parties to finalise it within two  months  from today.  The promotions  and  all  benefits shall be given retrospectively.  No application for  further extension by opposite parties shall be entertained.  Failure to  comply with the directions shall not be treated  lightly in future. 759 We  are not taking any action in the circumstances  for  the present.    The  contempt  applications  are   disposed   of accordingly.   But  the respondents shall pay a sum  of  Rs. 5,000 as costs to the applicants. U.R.           Contempt Petition disposed of. 760