U H JADHAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave is granted.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 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 (6-12-1995). It is that judgment and order of the Tribunal that is assailed as affecting the rights of the appellants.