ANIS PARVEZ AND ORS. versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 843 · Decided: 07-05-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

•
ANIS PARVEZ AND ORS.
v.
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND ORS.
MAY 7, 2002
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, MRS. RUMA PAL AND
BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.]
Service law:
Absorption of casual workers to Group D post under absorption scheme--
Subsequent absorption of another set of casual workers in Group C post
under separate scheme-Claimed by Group D post workers for quashing of
absorption in Group C post and for promoting them to the post-Held, Group
A
B
c
D post workers since already absorbed, cannot be considered again for D
absorption under later scheme-They could not be considered for promotion
since the workers in the later scheme were not considered by way of promotion.
Appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 12 were serving respondent Nos. 1
and 2 as casual workers. In 1985, respondent Nos. 3 to 12 were absorbed in
Grade D post according to their seniority pursuant to a scheme framed by E
respondent No. 1 for regularisation of casual workers. In 1991 appellants were
absorbed and regularised against Group 11/C post under different scheme for
regularisation of casual workers pursuant to a decision of this Court.
Respondent Nos. 3 to 12, filed applications before Central Administrative
Tribunal seeking quashing of regularisation of the appellants and sought for F
direction to respondent Nos. I and 2 to fill up the regular Group C post by
promoting them to the post. Appellants were not made parties therein. The
application were allowed by the Tribunal directing respondent Nos. I and 2 for
considering them for Group C post by quashing the appointment of the
appellants.
G
High Court dismissed the writ petition filed against order of the Tribunal
Appeal against the same in this Court by respondent No. I was dismissed in
litnine.
843
H
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2002] 3 S.C.R.
A
In appeal by the appellant against the order of the High Court, appellants
and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the case of respondent Nos. 3 to
12 for absorption in promotional grade could not be considered as they were
already absorbed as per availability of vacancies at the relevant time.
Respondent Nos. 3 to 12 contended that the absorption of appellants, who
B were junior to them, was contrary to rules of seniority.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Since respondent Nos. 3 to 12 had already been absorbed six
C years earlier against Group D posts according to their seniority and, therefore,
the question of considering them again for absorption under the later scheme
did not arise. (847-CI
2. Absorption of the appellants in Group II/Grade C cannot be faulted
with. It is only by way of concession that a scheme of absorption was framed
D pursuant to a direction issued by this court and when there were vacancies of
higher scale at the relevant time and respondent Nos. 3to12 were not serving
in those posts consideration of their cases for absorption in that Grade could
not be considered. Further when the absorption of the appellants came up for
consideration the posts were available in Group II/Grade C and, therefore, their
cases could not again be considered. Though the Tribunal has thought fit to
E give a direction to consider the cases of respondent Nos. 3 to 12 for promotion
to the Higher scale,,the cases of the appellants were considered not by way of
promotion but by way absorption in those posts. (847-D, E, Fl
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2935 of2000.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.99 of the Delhi High Court in
W.P. (C) No. 5758of1999.
WITH
G
I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 in S.L.P. (C) No. I 8382/1999.
Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, Raju Ramachandran, Ms.
Suman Bala Rastogi, Ms. Madho Sikri, V.K. Rao, Mrs. Santosh Singh, B.B.
Raval and Ms. Janani for the appearing parties.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
..
...
ANIS PARVfZ v_ DIR. GEN COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH {RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 845
RAJENDRA BABU, J.
C.A No. 2935 of 2000
The appellants in this appeal are employees of respondent No. 2 who
were regularised on Technician Grade II as highly skilled or skilled workers
A
on 9.12.1991 under a scheme formulated by respondent No. 1 pursuant to a B
decision of this Court in WP (C) No. 6331/88 Mrs. Kamlesh Kapoor v. Union
of India. In that writ petition, a direction was issued to respondent No. 1 to
prepare a scheme for the absorption of all persons who were working o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.