PALURU RAMKRISHNAIAH & ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 92 · Decided: 28-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PALURU RAMKRISHNAIAH & ORS. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
MARCH 28, 1989 
B 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ, L.M. SHARMA AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.J 
"'"' , 
Administrative Law: Executive instructions-cannot override 
• 
c 
D 
E 
any provision of the Statutory Rules. 
Civil Services: Indian Ordnance Factories (Recruitment and Con-
ditions of Service of Class Ill Personnel) Rules, 1956: Rules 8, 12 and 
circular dated November 6, 1962-Supervisors Grade 'A' promotion to 
Chargeman II on completion of two years satisfactory service-Whether 
there is discrimination and any condition of service of Supervisor 'A' 
affected. 
The petitioners in the writ petitions were appointed as Super-
visors Grade 'A' in various ordnance factories between 1962 and 1966, 
in pursuance of circular dated 6th November, 1962 issued by the 
Director General of Ordnance Factories. The circular further provided 
for promotion from Supervisor 'A' to Chargeman II, on completion of 
two years' satisfactory service. 
75 Supervisors Grade 'A' had moved a writ petition in the 
Allahabad High Court in 1972. Their grievance was that even though 
quite a large number of Supervisors Grade 'A' had been promoted to 
the post of Charge man Grade II on completion of two years' satis· 
factory work, in pursuance of the circular dated 6th November, 1962, 
F 
they had been discriminated against and had not been so promoted 
immediately on the expiry of two years' service. 
The writ petition was contested on the ground that the promotion 
from Supervisor Grade 'A' to Chargeman II were governed by the 
Indian Ordnance Factories (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of 
G 
Grade III Personnel) Rules, 1956 and such promotions could be made 
only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Rule 8 of these 
Rules. 
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the 
ground of unexplained !aches. The Division Bench did not find any 
H 
substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners and dis-
92 
P. RAMKR!SHNAIAH v. U.O.l. 
93 
~ missed their special appeal. According to the Division Bench, it was 
A 
difficult to read in the circular that after two years of satisfactory 
service there would be automatic promotion from Supervisor Grade 'A' 
to Chargeman II as such a view would militate against Rule 12 of the 
Rules, which provided that no appointment shall be made otherwise 
than as specified in the Rules. It was further held by the Division Bench 
that even assuming that some Supervisors Grade 'A' had been automa-
B 
i-
tically promoted on completion of two years' service, without the 
~ 
recommendation after screening by the Promotion Committee, as pro-
vided in Rule 8, no right would accrue in favour of the appellants 
inasmuch as such promotions would be in the teeth of Rule 12. 
4 
Against the judgment of the Division Bench, Civil Appeal No. 441 c 
of 1981 (Virendra Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others, 
1'· 
[1981] 3 SCC 30) was preferred and this Court by its order dated 
2.2.1981 directed that the cases of the 75 appellants in Civil Appeal No. 
441 of 1981 be considered for promotion as Chargeman Grade II and 
they be so promoted unless found to be unfit. 
D 
Another group of 125 Supervisors Grade 'A' got tt.e benefit of the 
Circular dated 6.11.1962 in pursuance of an order passed by the 
Madhya Pradesh High Court on 4th April I 983 on the basis of the 
judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 44i of 1981. Special Leave 
. .., 
Petitions against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court were 
dismissed by this Court. 
E 
-:. 
The petitioners in the present writ petitions pray that the same 
relief may be granted to them as had been granted in Civil Appeal No, 
441of1981. 
.--\ 
In the Civil Miscellaneous petitions now filed in Civil Appeal No. 
F 
\ 
~ 441 of 1981, the petitioners, apart from the prayer for initiating pro-
ceedings for contempt against the respondents for disobedience of the 
order of this Court dated 2.2.1981, have prayed for orders directing the 
respondents to implement in true letter and spirit the said order and to 
promote the petitioners to the liext higher posts after giving them the 
~' 
benefit of the directions of that order. Their grievance is that their G 
promotion tantamounts to implementation of the order of this Court 
dated 2.2.1981 only on paper inasmuch as they have not been granted 
the difference of back wages and promotion to higher posts on the basis 
of their back-date promotion as Chargeman II

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