UNION OF INDIA Vs. S S RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India and its functionaries who were respondents in the original application preferred by respondent no.1 herein assail the order dated 31.8.2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short the Tribunal?), in O.A. No.720 of 1998 (S.S. Rahman Vs. Union of India and others). Respondent no.1 herein preferred the aforesaid original application seeking quashing of the seniority list (Annexure-A/1 to the original application), published on 16.5.1995. The said gradation list was in respect of the employees who were holding the posts of Station Director (Senior Time Scale). A grievance was raised that the private respondents to the said original application (respondents 2nd set herein) were given undue advantage in the matter of fixation of seniority in the said grade.

(2.) We have perused the original application as well as the writ application preferred by the petitioners. We are sorry to note that the pleadings are grossly inadequate as a result of which we find it difficult to come to a definite finding with reference to the rules? provisions which were in vogue during the relevant time. We are also mindful of the position that the issue relates to a situation where for the first time a service cadre was being created in 1990 whereunder all the posts held on contract/regular basis under the Doordarshan and All India Radio were being assimilated and given appropriate status carrying a scale of pay. We also take notice of paragraph 10 of the order passed by the learned Tribunal whereby the petitioners herein were directed to furnish the relevant documents/facts concerning the issue enabling the Tribunal to come to a just and proper conclusion. It appears that in spite of indulgence shown to the writ petitioners, the documents/details were not furnished. The Tribunal has, therefore, proceeded on the basis of the materials placed before it and also drew adverse inferences. We called upon the parties before us to furnish all relevant documents but they have shown their inability. It is contended on behalf of both the parties that the matter may be decided with reference to the materials placed before the learned Tribunal, or before this Court by way of affidavits/counter affidavits.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf petitioners drew our attention to paragraph-16 of the order passed by the learned Tribunal which is reproduced hereinbelow: 16. In view of analysis made above, we are satisfied that the applicant has made out a case in his favour. Accordingly, Annexure-A/1 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to promote the applicant to Junior Administrative Grade along with all consequential benefits with effect from the date the same benefits have been given to other private respondents within a period of three months from the date of production/receipt of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioners strongly criticised part of the said direction whereby the authorities were directed to promote the applicant (respondent no.1 herein) to the next higher post of Junior Administrative Grade with all consequential benefits. It is the case of both the parties that relevant rules which governed the case(s) of the parties as well as the import of Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the 1990 Rules?) (effective from 5.11.1990), the amendment brought therein by reason of a notification dated 7.4.1994 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), were not properly addressed to and considered by the learned Tribunal in view of the position that relevant facts including the Rules (which governed the parties prior to coming into force of the 1990 Rules), were not placed on record.