UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the proceedings of the first respondent dated 5. 7. 2002 made in O. A. No. 796 of 2001 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows: The writ petition has been filed by the Joint General Manager in the office of the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi for and on behalf of all the petitioners. According to the petitioners, Shri. A. P. Mohandas, the applicant in o. A. No. 796 of 2001, the second respondent herein, was appointed as Trainee in artisan Training School (HVF) from 15. 6. 1994 and was made to undergo journeymanship training from 1. 7. 1965. After completing the abovesaid training, he was categorised as Tool Maker'b'with effect from 1. 8. 1966 as he had secured less than 55% marks in the qualifying examination. However, the second respondent was promoted as Mach'a'with effect from 26. 8. 1970 and he was categorised as Mach (M) with effect from 1. 12. 1974. He was further promoted as mach Spl. with effect from 16. 4. 1974 and thereafter, promoted as Highly Skilled grade-II with effect from 12. 6. 1982 and re-designated as Highly Skilled Grade-I with effect from 16. 11. 1982. Subsequently, Shri. A. P. Mohandas was granted notional promotion to the post of Supervisor'b' (Technical) on 10. 5. 1993 with effect from 21. 7. 1971 and re-categorised as Chargeman Grade-II (Technical) with effect from 10. 5. 1993. The abovesaid factual position is not disputed.

(3.) IT is also the case of the petitioners that after drawing of the seniority list on 1. 5. 1997, one T. I. Achuthan and 15 others who were notionally promoted Ex-Journeymen, filed O. A. No. 689 of 1997 to set aside the order of promotion based on the seniority list dated 1. 5. 1997. The tribunal, by order dated 1. 11. 1999, upheld the seniority list dated 1. 5. 1997 based on the order of the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. In the order of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 689 of 1997 dated 1. 11. 1999, the relevant portion is as hereunder: "when the above issue (notional seniority) was taken up before the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in O. A. 217/87, the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal it is judgment dated 14. 2. 1991 had held that persons who were given notional seniority cannot rank above persons who were regularly promoted earlier. Further, when the matter was taken in appeal before the Apex Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to examine the judgment of Jabalpur bench of this Tribunal wherein the Supreme Court had upheld the judgment of the jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal and had dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Thus, it leaves no room for any doubt about the manner in which the seniority has to be decided in respect of persons who were given notional seniority viz-a-viz persons who were promoted on a regular basis. . . . Thus, it is clear that the implementation of Chellam committee's recommendations for HVF also is based on the orders dated 6. 7. 1978 and 7. 9. 1992, cited supra. Further all the 346 Ex. Journeyman including the applicants have been granted notional promotion by HVF vide order No. 379 Part ii dated 18. 3. 1997. In view of this it is clear that the statement of the applicants set out in Para 6 of their rejoinder is in correct. Further having opted on 20. 3. 1997, cited supra, the seniority of the applicants is governed by the relevant orders dt. 6. 7. 1978, 7. 9. 1992 (cited supra) and the order dated 23. 8. 1994 made in order No. 571/a/i (GENL)/ex-Journeymanship ). Further as on 1. 9. 1992 the applicants were in the post of Supervisor-B (notionally promoted)and hence their promotion to Chargeman Grade-II is to be treated as appointment to Chargeman-II/tech on par with other supervisors. Thus, they cannot claim seniority alone based on promotion order Part II No. 807 dated 3. 5. 1993 and cannot also quote one order for seniority and the other order for notional benefits. From the above it emerges that the official respondents have adopted a uniform practice to not only alleviate the difficulties of those workers who obtained only Grade-B and stagnated without any promotion prospects for a long time but also had given them the relief by way of notional promotion and other attendant benefits after examination of the whole issue in depth. We also find that the issue has already been examined by the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in the decision rendered in O. A. No. 217/87 and the said decision has also been affirmed by the Apex Court. Under these circumstances we find no reason to interfere with the action of the official respondents. In the result the OA is dismissed as devoid of merits with no order as to costs. " IT is submitted that the appeal filed by five persons against O. A. No. 689 of 1997 in W. P. No. 2258 of 2001 before this Court was dismissed on 27. 3. 2001. Another O. A. No. 79 of 1999 was filed for the same relief and was dismissed on 8. 8. 2000 and therefore, the second respondent has come up again by way of the present O. A. which is under challenge before this Court.