NARENDER CHADHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The perennial dispute regarding seniority between direct recruits and promotees which exists in almost all the dep ments of Government has not spared the Indian Economic Service and the Indian Statistical Service with which we are concerned in this case. This is the second phase of the battle which is being waged in this Court. Earlier certain persons who had been holding posts in Grade IV of these two Services had filed Writ Petition No. 1595 of 1979 under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing the Union of India to confirm/regularise the petitioners in the posts held by them as and from the dates when they became due for confirmation or regularisation in accordance with the Indian Economic Service Rules, 1961 or the Indian Statistical Service Rules, 1961 and to consider them for all future promotions when due on the basis of such seniority. The said petition' was filed in a representative capacity with the leave of the Court under O. I, R. 8 C.P.C. A few officers who had been recruited as direct recruits to the posts in Grade IV in the said departments were impleaded as respondents and they were sued in a representative capacity as representing all other direct recruits who were likely to be affected by the decision. After the above case was heard, the Court passed a short order on Feb. 1, 1984 which reads thus:

(2.) The Union of India, as can be seen from the order set out above, was directed to comply with the directions contained therein within four weeks from the date of the order. On the expiry of four weeks, stipulated by this Court, the Union of India filed an application for extension of time to comply with the directions contained therein fully. Time was extended by the Court till April 30, 1984. On May 1, 1984 the Union of India filed before the Court two sets of seniority lists in respect of the above two Services, namely, lists based on the principle of rotation and lists based on Rule 9-C of the Indian Economic Service / Indian Statistical Service Rules. Since on a perusal of the said lists it was found that the position of some of the departmental promotees who had already put in nearly 15 years of service in Grade IV was worse than the position in which they were before the writ petition was filed and were facing imminent threat of reversion to the feeder posts from which they had been promoted several years ago, the Court directed the petition to come up for hearing before the Court on its re-opening after summer vacation and directed that status quo should be maintained in the meanwhile. Then on July 24, 1984 the Court while declining to endorse either of the two seniority lists directed the Union of India to implement the order dated February 1, 1984 on or before 30th November, 1984. In the meanwhile the petitioners filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2604 of 1985 complaining that the Union of India had failed to comply with the order made by this Court and that action should be taken for contempt against it. While opposing the application for contempt, on behalf of the Union of India it was stated in the course of the affidavit sworn by Shri P. L. Sakarwal, Deputy Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi thus:

(3.) In the meanwhile certain direct recruits also intervened in the course of the said petition and requested that they should be heard before any order was passed by the Court on the contempt application. While the order passed by the Court on February 1, 1984 did not require any clarification at all, since the parties tried to place different interpretations on it, prayer was made by the Union Government as stated above seeking further clarifications in the light of certain recent decisions rendered by this Court, we gave oppportunity to all the parties to make their submissions once again. Availing themselves of the opportunity given by the Court learned counsel for the promotees and the direct recruits have virtually reargued the matter. It should be stated here that no specific stand was taken on this occasion by the Union Government except bringing to the notice of the Court the relevant provisions of law. On its behalf it was submitted very fairly by Shri F. S. Nariman, that there was no intention on the part of the Government or any of its officers to flout the order of the Court passed earlier and that if the Court found that there has been any mistake in the preparation of the lists of seniority, those lists would be prepared afresh in the light of any direction that may be given by the Court in the course of these proceedings. Having regard to the facts of the case and the events that have followed the order passed by this Court on February 1, 1984, we do not feel called upon to take any ion for contempt against the Union Government or any of its officers for not obeying the orders of this Court. We have, however, found it necessary to consider the matter again in the light of the submissions made by the parties and issue fresh directions in this case. We feel that a detailed order is also called for in the circumstances of the case.