KKM NAIR AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 906 · Decided: 31-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'I 
"' 
A 
K.K.M. NAIR AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 31, 1993 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH, N.M. KASLIWAL AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
Civil Services: 
-
Indian Ordnance Factories (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of 
c Class Ill Personnel) Rules, 1956: 
Rules 3( I), 8 and 12-Seniority-Promotional cadre-Circular giving 
benefit of accelerated chances of promotion-Later withdrawn by subsequell( 
circulai-Benefits of first circular restored by High Coun--Consequential 
orders giving antedated seniority and promotions-Persons adversely affected 
D but were not ponies to the earlier litigation approaching Tribunal-Tribunal 
setting aside the order-Validity of 
The Director-General, Ordnance Factories (D.G.) issued a Circular 
dated 6.11.1962 to the effect that the Diploma holders who have been 
E 
appointed· as Supervisor Grade 'B' (tenchnical) or in equivalent grades, 
>-
should on completion of one year's satsifactory service be promoted the 
post of Supervisor Grade' A' (Tech.) and the Diploma holders who worked 
satisfactorily as Supervisor 'A' (Tech.) or in equivalent grddes for 2 years 
should be promoted as Chargemau. Subsequently the D.G. issued another 
-,....
Circular dated 20.1.1966 according to which promotio~s were to be in 
F 
accordance with normal rules .i.e. on the basis of their listing by the 
relevant Departmental Promotion Committee and not merely on satisfac· 
tory completition of 2 years contfnuous service as Supervisor 'A' Grade or 
equivalent grades. In effect, the first Circular Wds withdrawn by the 
second Circular. 
G 
In 1973 some Supervisors Grade 'A' filed a Writ Petition before the 
High Court claiming benefit of the first circular. Without going into the 
·~ 
merits of the controvery, a Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the 
Writ Petition on the ground of delay. On appeal, a Division Bench of the 
High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on merits. On further appeal this 
H. Court directed that the cases of those appellants be considered for promo-
906 
r 
-
-+ 
~ 
-
-«, 
}--
K.K.M. NAIR v. U.0.l. 
907 
tion as Chargeman Gr.II and they promoted them, unless they were found A' 
unlit, from the dates on which they ought to have been promoted. 
(Virendra Kumar & Ors. v. U.O.l., C.A. No. 441/1981 decided on 2.2.81). 
Thereafter the present _appellants filed Writ Petitions before the High 
Court praying for the same relief as W-ds granted by this Court in Virendra 
Kumar's case. The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions. The Special 
Leave Petitions filed by the Union of India against the Judgment came to B 
be dismissed. Consequently the D.G. issued an order giving antedated 
seniority to the ~ppellants for the purposes of promotion. The appellants 
were also given deemed dates of promotion to post of cbargeman Gr.II 
from the dates when· they completed two years of service as Supervisor Gr. 
'A' and consequent seniority in the other higher grades. This resulted in 
some employees who were senior to the appellants in the cadre of Char· 
geman Gr.II and other higher grades becoming junior to the appellants. 
These employees who were ·adversely affected by the order of the D.G. 
giving ante-dated seniority to the appellants and were not impleaded as 
parties at any stage of the litigation, challenged the DG's order before the· 
Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application 
and set aside the DG's order giving ante-dated seniority to the appellants. 
Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Tribunal, the appellants preferred 
the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: I. Tliis Court has authoritatively laid down in Pa/urn's case 
that Civil Appeal No. 441/81 Virendra Kumar v. U.0.1., was not correctly 
decided. The appellants have throughout been basing their claim on 
Virendra Kumar's case. Once the base is knocked out by the judgment of 
this Court in Pa/urn's case the appellants are left with no ground to 
sustain the order dated February 20/25, 1987 issued by the D.G. by which 
they were given ante-dated seniority. [917 B·C) 
c 
D 
E) 
F 
I .2. Even if it is assumed that the High Court judgment had become 
final with the dismissal of the SLP against it, and could not have been G 
reviewed by the High Court or the Tribunal, it became final only between 
the parties inter-se. The first circular was issued in the year 1962. The 
appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court twenty years thereafter 
seeking enforcement of the first circular. The pet

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