PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYAY AND ORS. versus V.K. KAPOOR AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 462 · Decided: 12-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYA Y AND ORS. 
r f 
~ 
v. 
V.K. KAPOOR AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 12, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Seniority-Posts of Charge-man Grade III Supervisor Grade-A-
Examination for-Some employees getting marginally less marks 
appointed as Supervisor Grade A-Under the Scheme such employees 
were to be given a chance to appear in examination to be graded as 
Charge-man Grade II, but no such examination held and a pick and 
D choose policy adopted-Later, both posts merged as Charge-man 
Grade-II-Tribunal allowing the claim of affected employees anq 
directing to refix iheir notional seniority as Charge-man Grade !!-
Benefit of order of Tribunal given to some employees and not to others 
on the plea of interpretation as regards concept of notional seniority 
E in the judgment of the Tribunal-HELD: Action on part of department 
in giving benefit of order of Tribunal to some employees and denying 
the same to other similarly situated and affected employees is wholly 
unjustifiable-Judgment of a Court should not be read as a statute, it 
should be read in its entirety-Constitution of India-Article I 4-
F Judgment. 
The appellants, who appeared in the examination for appointment 
to the post of Charge-man Grade II or Supenrisor Grade A, were 
appointed as SupenrisorGrade-A on account of the marginal difference 
G in the marks obtained by them. By an order of the Director General 
issued on 4.5.1967 they were to be given another chance to appear in 
the examination to enable them to be graded as Charge-man Grade-II, 
but the said order was not implemented and a policy of pick and choose 
was adopted to grant the benefit. With effect from 1.1.1-980 the posts of 
H 
462 
I ; 
_..,.. 
PURNENDU MUKHOPADHY A Y v. V .K. KAPOOR 
463 
SupenisorGrade-A and Charge-man Grade-II were merged. The issue A 
of seniority led to the litigation and, ultimately, the Central 
Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 9.7.1990 directed the 
department to refix notional seniority of the affected employees, as if 
all the applicants came out successful in the selection test for promotion 
to the post of Charge-man Grade-II, from their respective dates of B 
examination; and that the decision would be binding on all persons 
similarly situated. I twas also observed that the employees will not be 
entitled to any back wages or any other financial benefits save and 
except the notional seniority. Meanwhile, a Full Bench of the Tribunal 
also held that the beneficiaries in the case filed by appellants could be C 
allowed notional seniority in the grade of Charge-man Grade-II only 
for determining revised date from which presumptive pay should be 
fixed. Relying on the said judgment, some other employees filed O.A. 
which was allowed and the department implemented the order of the 
Tribunal with reganl to them, but not in the case of appellants. Aggrieved, D 
the appellants filed the instant appeal and the contempt petition. 
It was contended for the appellants that in view of the judgment 
of the Central Administrative Tribunal as confirmed by the Supreme 
Court, the appellants were not only entitled to be appointed as Charge- E 
man Grade-II, but also entitled to promotion to higher grades and 
respective notional seniority at each level having regard to the fact that 
those who were juniors to them had been promoted in terms of Rule 
18.4.3. 
On the direction of the Court, the department filed a status report F 
admitting that benefit of the order of the Tribunal was given to some 
employees, but could not be given to the appellants due to the pend ency 
of the appeal as also interpretation on concept of notional seniority by 
the Full Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
~-'-
HELD: 1. According to the appellants, their case falls under 
category I of the Full Bench judgment of the Tribunal. This fact has 
also been accepted by the respondents in their status report. Thus, if H 
I 
~ 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
~ I* -1.: 
A the appellants were to be appointed and or promoted as Charge-man 
.,. 
Grade-II before 1st January, 1973, they became senior to the other 
employees. Some employees had been given the benefit of the order 
passed by the Tribunal. The action on the part of the respondents giving 
benefit of the order of the Tribunal to some employees and denying the 
B same to the appellants is wholly unjustifiable. The judgment of a court, 
as i

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