KARNAIL SINGH SONI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined as Commercial Apprentice in the grade of Rs.550 -750 (unrevised) revised to Rs.1600 -2660, on 28.07.1988. After completion of requisite training the petitioner was substantively appointed to the said post on 18.08.1990. Resultantly, he joined as Goods Supervisor. Respondents No.3 and 4 had joined service as Goods Clerks on 22.03.1969 and 24.09.1974, respectively. There were two sources for recruitment to the post of Commercial Apprentice i.e., 75% by promotion and 25% by competitive examination. Out of 25% quota for direct recruits, 10% of the posts were to be filled out of the in -service candidates, who were graduates. Respondents No.3 and 4 competed against 10% graduate quota for appointment as Commercial Apprentices in the grade of Rs.455 -700 in April, 1983. After completion of the requisite training, both the respondents No.3 and 4 were appointed in the grade of Rs.455 -700 (revised to Rs.1400 -2300) on 13.11.1984 and 12.11.1984, respectively and their seniority was accordingly fixed. That by virtue of their appointment to the grade of Rs.1400 -2300, respondents No.3 and 4 were further placed in the grade of Rs.1600 -2660 w.e.f. 11.04.1991 and 30.03.1991, respectively. On the basis of the memorandum of restructuring of 1987, respondents No.3 and 4 were accorded the benefit of grade of Rs.1600 -2660 w.e.f. 15.05.1987. They were further promoted as Chief Goods Supervisors (Rs.2000 -3200) w.e.f. 01.03.1993 vide order dated 28.09.1993.

(2.) IT may be apposite to point out here, that the applicability and the true import of memorandum of 1987 (supra), was questioned in numerous Original Applications filed before the different Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'). However, eventually, the matter was set at rest by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, vide its judgment rendered in 'Union of India and others v. M.Bhaskar and others', decided on 06.05.1996 reported as 1996(4) SLR 450. In brief, what the Hon'ble Court had observed in context of the memorandum of 1987, was that the same was completely misconstrued by the different Benches of the Tribunal. The said memorandum was really not on the basis of revision of the pay -scales of Traffic/Commercial Apprentices as had been understood by different Benches. As a result, the applicants were granted higher pay -scales and the scale of Rs.1600 -2660 was made admissible to all Traffic/Commercial Apprentices, irrespective of the grade of the posts held by them, which was a clear misunderstanding of the memorandum. It may be pertinent to point out further, post - decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the official respondents passed an order dated 14.01.1997 and withdrew the benefit of the grade of Rs.1600 -2660, extended to the private respondents w.e.f. 15.05.1987. As a result, respondents No.3 and 4 were assigned seniority in the grade of Rs.1600 -2660 w.e.f. 30.03.1991 and 11.04.1991, respectively. Likewise, they were placed in the grade of Rs.2000 -3200 as Chief Goods Supervisors w.e.f. 01.03.1993 instead of 01.03.1995.

(3.) IT was further stated, that as a result of the revised dates of the proforma promotions accorded to respondents No.3 and 4, they were placed in the seniority list of Chief Goods Supervisor at Sr. Nos. 2A and 2B, above the petitioner who was placed at Sr. No.3. The petitioner represented against the notice/letter dated 01.01.2001 and prayed that the said decision whereby the private respondents were placed above him in the seniority list be reconsidered. However, the same was rejected by the official respondents vide their response dated 05.03.2001, communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 06.03.2001. That being so, the petitioner approached the Tribunal vide O.A. No. 222 -PB -2001. In a nutshell, the grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal and before this Court is that respondents No.3 and 4 were wrongly placed in the higher grades and that too from a date prior in a point of time to that of the petitioner. Thus, relegating the petitioner to a lower position in the seniority list vis -a -vis them. The action of the official respondents was stated to be against the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court (supra). Therefore, it was prayed that the decision of the official respondents dated 06.03.2001 in response to the representation of the petitioner and the notice/letter dated 01.01.2001 be quashed.