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

PETITIONER: SHREEDHARAN KALLAT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/04/1995

BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  640            1995 SCC  (4) 207  JT 1995 (6)   215        1995 SCALE  (3)672

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  directed against  the order of the Central Administrative  Tribunal   does  not   raise  any  intricate question of  law but  it exposes  very disturbing feature as the Tribunal not only commented upon the judgements rendered by the  Kerala High  Court in  favour of the appellant which had been  affirmed by  this Court,  but went on to hold that they  had   no  binding   effect  as  they  appeared  to  be inconsistent with  the  Rules.  This  was  against  judicial comity and propriety. We do not approve of it.      The appellant  who was  appointed as a Ticket Collector in 1950  was promoted as Travelling Ticket Examiner in 1951. He went  on deputation as Railway Sectional Officer (RSO) in 1960. There  he  continued  for  nearly  12  years.  He  was reverted  to   the  parent  department  on  2.2.73.  It  was challenged by  way of two writ petitions. The petitions were allowed by  the learned  Single Judge.  It was held that the appointment of  appellant as  Railway Sectional  Officer was based on selection. The Court further held that the post was permanent and the claim of the Railways that it was a tenure post was  not correct.  This order was affirmed in appeal by the Division  Bench and even the SLP filed in this Court was dismissed.  Since   the  order   was  not  implemented,  the appellant approached  the High  Court, once  again, and  the Railways were  directed to  dispose  of  the  representation within two  months. But  the order  was  not  complied.  The appellant approached  the High  Court for third time. He was called for  selection to  Class  II  post.  The  High  Court allowed the writ petition and held that in Class II post his seniority was  to be  reckoned from  1963.  This  order  was challenged by  the Railways  before the  Division Bench. The appeal was dismissed. The SLP filed by the Railways was also dismissed.   In 1983 the Railways fixed the seniority of the appellant in Class II from 1963.      Thus came to an end the first phase of liltigation. Now

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

started the  second phase.  One  S.Ramakrishnan  (Respondent No.6) who  was  direct  recruit  and  was  not  affected  by fixation of appellant’s seniority filed writ petition in the High Court.  It  was  subsequently  transferred  to  Central Administrative Tribunal.  During hearing  it transpired that he  was   not  aggrieved  person  and  then  another  direct appointee S.  Chakradhara Rao  (Respondent No.5) filed claim petition which was heard along with earlier petition and the decision in it is subject matter of this appeal.      What is  surprising is that apart from respondents even the Railways which was unsuccessful twice again raked up the same controversy  and supported the respondents. The plea of the Railways is described thus by the Tribunal,      "Thus the stand taken by the railways in      their counter  in all these applications      is that Shreedharan will not be entitled      either  for  retention  as  RSO  or  for      promotion  or   for  protection  of  the      emoluments which  he had  received while      on deputation, but for the judgements of      the Kerala High Court." The Tribunal framed following issues:-      "(i) whether  the order  of the  fourth respondent  dt.      22.5.1979 appointing  Shreedharan as  CTTI with  effect      from 1.1.1979, is valid;      (ii) whether  the order  of the  fourth respondent  dt.      16.6.1979 confirming  Shreedharan as  CTTI with  effect      from 20.10.1975 is correct;      (iii) whether  the order  of the  third respondent  dt.      21.6.1979  informing   Shreedharan  that   he  can   be      considered  only  for  the  post  of  Asst.  Commercial      Officer, is valid;      (iv)  whether   the  fourth   respondent’s  order   dt.      24.5.1980 appointing  Shreedharan as  Public  Relations      Officer is valid;      (v) whether the fourth respondent’s order dt. 27.1.1983      fixing the  seniority of  Shreedharan in Class II as on      1964 is valid in law." The first four issues having been settled by the judgment of the  High   Court,  the  Tribunal  committed  act  of  grave impropriety in  attempting to  reopen it.   Such practice of the Tribunal  cannot be  commended. It has interfered at the instance of the respondents who were not adversely affected. The judgment  was binding  on Railways.  It could  not  once again take  up those  very pleas  which were rejected by the High Court.  Such unwarranted  stand by  public  authorities results in  protracted litigation invovling wastage of money and time.      Assuming that  the respondents could challenge fixation of seniority  of the  appellant as the order which furnished foundation for  the determination  of seniority,  was passed without  impleading  the  respondents,  the  scope  of  such petition could be limited. In service matters where validity or interpretation  of rule  is concerned any order passed by the  courts  which  achieves  finality  is  binding  on  the Department. If  the court is satisfied that any employee has been prejudiced  or his  right under  Article  14  has  been violated it  may interfere in his favour. But the Department is precluded  from challenging  the interpretation  given by the court.  Since the  earlier order has been upheld by this Court the  order could  be set  aside by  this Court.    The Tribunal could  not have  passed an  order which resulted in disturbing  the   finality  about   interpretation  of  rule specially when the S.L.P. had been dismissed by this Court.      The appeal is consequently allowed and the order of the

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

Tribunal is  set aside.  The claim  petition  filed  by  the respondents  shall  stand  dismissed.    The  appellant  was entitled to  exemplary costs  against Railways, but since no one appeared  for the  Railways, and the learned counsel for the appellant  did not press for it we refrain from imposing costs.