A.N. SEHGAL AND ORS. versus RAJE RAM SHEORAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 31-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
A.N. SEHGAL AND ORS. 
v. 
RAJE RAM SHEORAN AND ORS. 
MARCH 31, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Contempt 
Fixation of seniority-Directions given by Supreme Court-lnter se 
C fttment of direct recruits and promotees done in violation of directions 
given-Held there was no sincerity on part of authorities to implement the 
directions-Held implementation was designed to favour promotees-Direc-
tions given for rectification of illegality. 
This Court inA.N. Sehgal & Ors. v.Raje Ram Sheoran & Ors., (1992] 
D Supp. 1 SCC 304 interpreted the Haryana Service Engineers Class-I 
P.W.D. (Roads and Buildings Branch) Rules, 1960 and gave directions 
regarding reckoning of seniority between direct recruits and promotees 
that: (i) the promotees from Class II service shall not exceed SO per cent 
of the posts in the service and the remaining SO per cent shall be kept open 
E only to the Assistant Executive Engineers who were directly recruited but 
later were found eligible and fit for promotion as Executive Engineers; and 
(ii) the promotees occupying the post within SO% quota of the direct 
recruits acquired no right to the post and should yield place to the direct 
recruit, though promoted later to him, to the senior scale posts, i.e. 
Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer. The 
F respondents were directed to comply with these directions and determine 
the cadre strength accordingly. On their failure to do so the present 
contempt petition has been filed. 
G 
Disposing the petition, this Court 
HELD: Even after the contempt proceedings, while notice was issued, 
though time was repeatedly taken, the respondent have done the exercise at 
a snail's pace. These facts clearly show that the respondents have 
deliberately delayed in finalisation of seniority list to benefit the existing 
promotees till they retired from the service. This impression gets fortifica· 
H tion from a cursory glance at the mandatory time frame fixed in the 
104 
..... 
' --
AN. SEHGAL v. RATE RAM SHEORAN 
105 
judgment, orders passed from time to time and final list prepared by the A 
respondents. Even then the fitment itself bas not been done as per the 
specific and unambiguous findings recorded and directions given. It is 
clear from the fitment made vis-a-vis promotees and direct recruits as is 
evident from the seniority list prepared by the respondents. The fitment 
given to direct recruits has gone directly in the teeth of the direction given B 
by this Court. There is no sincerity on the part of the respondents in 
implementation of Rules as directed by this Court. This conduct is wilful 
and the impugned action was designedly done to give a twist to the orders 
so as to favour the promotees for whom the respondents already fought for 
but lost. The respondents are directed to rectify the illegality within one 
week from the date of the order. [107-C, D, G, 108-D, El 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition No. 
39/92. 
IN 
Civil Appeal No. 4094 of 1984. 
• 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.84 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in C.M. No. 1458/83 in C.W.P. No. 5371 of 1981. 
J anendra Lal for the Appellants. 
Madhava Reddy, Mahabir Singh and S.C. Patel for the Respondents. 
Gopal Subramaniam, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Indu Malhotra for the State 
intetvenor-in-person. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
c 
D 
E 
F 
This Court in A.N. Sehgal & Ors. v. Raje Ram Sheoran & Others, 
[1992] Supp 1 SCC 304, while interpreting the Haryana Service of En-
gineers, Class I, PWD (Roads and Buildings Branch) Rules, 1960, held G 
that:-
"On a conjoint reading of Rules 12(3) and 12(5) it is clear that the 
year of allotment of the Assistant Executive Engineer in the post 
of Executive Engineer, shall be the calendar year in which the 
order of appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer had been H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995]3 S.C.R. 
made. Thus his seniority as Executive Engineer, by fiction of law, 
would relate back to his date of initial appointment as Assistant 
Executive Engineer and in juxtaposition to Class II officers' 
seniority as Executive Engineer is unalterable. The date of the 
seniority of Mr. R.R. Sheoran thus shall be August 30, 1971. His 
seniority as Executive Engineer shall accordingly be reckoned." 
While Mr. R.S. Sheoran's seniority as Executive Engineer has deter-
mined as above, with effect from August 30, 1971, as 
regards the 
promotees, this Court hel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.