PROMOTEE TELECOM ENGINEERS FORUM & ORS. versus D.S. MATHUR, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 442 · Decided: 25-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 442 
A 
PROMOTEE TELECOM ENGINEERS FORUM & ORS. 
V. 
D.S. MATHUR, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF 
TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
(Contempt Petition (C) No. 248 of 2007) 
8 
MARCH 25, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law - Seniority - Restoration of - Principles laid 
c down by High Court in Parmanand Lat's case that criteria for 
fixation of seniority was qualifying year; attaining finality -
Benefit of seniority to applicants in terms thereof- Subsequent 
Order of this Court that criteria for fixation of seniority was 
recryitment year - Re-determination of seniority of applicants 
D to their disadvantage - Application for clarification, allowed 
by this Court holding that earlier seniority gained on basis of 
Court's order not to be disturbed - Non-implementation by 
1 
Department and a/so refusal to act on the directions issued -
Contempt petition - Held: Order in clarification application 
E 
violated - Interpretation by Department that benefit of the 
iudgment would be available only to those employees who 
were parties in that particular petition not correct - Rights of 
applicants have been crystallized by various orders passed 
by tribunal/courts-A/so it cannot be said that applicants should 
F 
challenge Department's order disposing of representations by 
way of Original Application before tribunal - Thus, Department 
directed to restore the seniority of applicants in terms of 
principles laid down in Parmanand Lat's case - Telegraph 
Engineering Service Class-// Recruitment Rules, 1986 - Post 
and Telegraph Manual, Volume IV - Para 206. 
G 
In terms of the instructions contained in para 206 of 
the Post and Telegraph Manual, Volume IV, those who 
passed departmental qualifying examination earlier were 
ranked senior as a group to those who passed the 
H 
442 
PROMOTEE TEL. ENG. FORUM & ORS. v. D.S. 
443 
MATHUR, SEC., DEPTT. OF TEL. 
examination subsequently. The present applicant-
A 
Parmanand Lal of 1966 batch and Brij Mohan of 1965 
batch qualified in the examinations held in 1974 but were 
placed in the eligibility list below the last man who qualified 
the examination in 1975. Aggrieved, applicants filed writ 
petition which was allowed by the Allahabad High Court. 
B 
""' 
The order attained finality. The applicants were given the 
benefit of seniority applying the principles laid down in 
Parmanand Lat's case and their seniority in the cadre was 
fixed on basis of the order in which they passed 
departmental examination and were placed above Shri C 
Belani, Biradar and Kulkarni. Thereafter, in C.A. No. 4339 
of 1995, this Court by order dated 26.4.2000 held that the 
statutory Rules-Telegraph Engineering Service Class-II 
Recruitment Rules, 1986, alone would govern the 
preparation of eligibility lists and the instructions in 0 
paragraph 206' of the P & T Manual would be of no 
consequence. It issued guidelines whereby criteria for 
fixation of seniority was the recruitment year. In terms 
thereof, Shri Belani, Biradar and Kulkarni became senior 
to applicants in the seniority list and superseded the 
applicants. The applicants then filed application for E 
clarification IA No. 16 in C.A. No. 4339 of 1995 which was 
allowed by this Court by order dated 29.09.2006. However, 
the respondent-Department did not implement the said 
order. The applicants then sent representations. Th~ 
Department passed an order dated 20.01.2007 wherein 
F 
the applicants were given changed seniority number but 
in effect, they were continued to be shown junior to Shri 
Belani, Kulkarni and Biradar who had superseded the 
petitioners in the revision of seniority lists in the year 2001. 
A reference was made to the contempt petition which was G 
disposed' of. The Department was directed to respond to 
the representations of the applicants. The Department 
passed an office order that the benefit of the order of this 
Court would be admissible only to the applicants who 
were parties before this Court. The applicants contended H 
. 444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A that such an act amounted to willful disobedience of the 
judgment of this Court. It requested the Department to re-
consider the letter wherein it was stated that the 
applicant's seniority was liable to be protected as per the 
order passed by this Court from time to time. However, 
B the Department stated that it had already considered the 
same. Hence, the present contempt petition. 
Allowing the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It

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