BABUBHAI I BHILL Vs. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr P.H. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Shakeel Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondents in all these matters.

(2.) THE petitioners were working as Mail Motor Service (for short, 'MMS'), which was a separate unit from Railway Motor Service (for short, 'RMS'). It is their case that though the employees of MMS were not transferred from MMS to any other Department, they came to be transferred to RMS by the Chief Post Master General, Gujarat Circle, where different cadres were in existence. At the time of issuance of the transfer order the petitioners were working as Head Mail Attendant in the time scale of pay of Rs.210270. The petitioners challenged the transfer order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench at Ahmedabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') by filing Original Application No.245 of 1994, which was disposed of by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 28th April 1994. The judgment of the Tribunal is extracted below:

(3.) IT is relevant to point out that both these orders dated 28 th April 1994 passed in Original Application No.245 of 1994 and order dated 3 rd January 1997 passed in Original Application No.836 of 1995 had become final and pending between the parties. In spite of these orders have become final the respondents did not comply with the directions of the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioners filed third application being Original Application No.20 of 2004 for implementing the directions of the Tribunal, which has been decided by the Tribunal on 28 th September 2005 by which the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that benefits of the Scheme, timebound promotion/biannual cadre review were not available to the petitioner as they were working in the MMS. The other reason on which the application was dismissed was that the post of Head Mail Man corresponding to the post of Head Mail Guard and they cannot be merged and therefore the seniority of the petitioner to be downgraded and accordingly the Tribunal accepted the contention of the Department that by mistake they have stated in their affidavitinreply that the services of the petitioner could not be disturbed in any manner by transfer order and their seniority would be protected. We are of the considered opinion that once in the affidavit in reply a statement was made by the respondents before the Tribunal and relying upon the same the Tribunal has dismissed their Original Application No.245 of 1994 and the same has become final and subsequently in another Original Application No.936 of 1995 a direction was issued by the Tribunal for complying with the statement made before the Tribunal in the earlier order, which also became final and binding between the parties, it was not open for the respondent to say in the third round of litigation that the earlier statement made by them that the conditions of service of any of the applicants is adversely affected nor their seniority is going to be disturbed, was made by mistake and the corrigendum issued by the respondents on 11.8.1997 was totally illegal and such a corrigendum cannot be issued by the respondents to overreach the order of the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons, the corrigendum dated 11th August 1997 is liable to be set aside and the direction is liable to be issued to the respondents to comply with the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 3rd January 1997 passed in Original Application No.936 of 1995 which has been passed on the basis of the earlier order dated 28th April 1994 passed in Original Application No.245 of 1994. The order of the Tribunal cannot be maintained as grave injustice has been done to the petitioners by the conduct of the respondents and it cannot be permitted that they may blow hot and cold in the same fashion. The statement made by the respondent before the Tribunal was binding and deserves to be complied with by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 28 th September 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench at Ahmedabad in Original Application No.20 of 2004 as well as Corrigendum dated 11.8.1997 issued by the respondents are set aside and the respondents are directed to comply with the order, which was passed by the Tribunal dated 3rd January 1997 passed in Original Application No.936 of 1995 and the earlier order dated 28 th April 1994 passed in Original Application No.245 of 1994 within a period of four months. A copy of this order be produced before respondent No.1. Parties shall bear their own costs.