S.I. ROOPLAL AND ANR. versus LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 310 · Decided: 14-12-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S.I. ROOPLAL AND ANR. 
LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, DELHI AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 14, 1999 
B 
[S.P. BHARUCHA, R.C. LAHOTI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Inter-se seniority-Of transferred officials of Delhi Police-Transferred 
C from BSF on deputation-Permanent absorption-Consideration of previous 
service in parent department for granting seniority, denied-Reliance by the 
State on Office memo-Memo not made public or made known to the concerned 
officials-Relevant clause of memo inconsistent-Held, the service rendered 
by the transferee officials in BSF as Sub-Inspector is entitled to be counted 
D for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of sub-Inspector Delhi Police-...~uch 
a right cannot be taken away in the garb of an office memo-In inter-se 
disputes between employees, state should act as an impartial employer-Its 
role before judicial forum should be of an amicus curiae. 
Equivalence of Post-Determination of-Equivalence of the post is not 
E judged by the sole fact of equal pay, but other factors like the nature of 
duties, responsibilities, minimum qualification etc. are also taken into 
consideration. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 & 16-0ffice Memorandum-
Having effect of taking away past service in an equivalent cadre in the 
F parent department-Held violative of 
Judicial Discipline-Rule of precedence-Judgment passed by a co-
ordinate Bench of Tribunal, which was later confirmed by Supreme Court-
subsequently overruled by another Bench of the Tribunal-Held, opposed to 
principles of judicial discipline-A co-ordinate Bench of a court cannot 
G pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench--
It can only refer to a larger Bench in case of disagreement-Constitution of 
India, 1950-Artic/e 141. 
. The appellants and others, regularly appointed as Sub-Inspectors in 
H BSF, were transferred on deputation to Delhi Police as Sub-Inspectors and 
310 
, 
• 
S.I. ROOPLAL v. LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECY. 
311 
were subsequently permanently absorbed. The service of the transferee A 
officials in their parent department (BSF) was not considered for determining 
seniority of Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police. One of the transferee officials 
'A' filed an application before Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter 
called CAT) claiming that his continuous officiation on a substantive basis 
as Sub-Inspector in the BSF should be counted for determination of his B 
seniority in Delhi Police, which was allowed by CAT. Review petition against 
the judgment of the Tribunal filed by the State was dismissed. SLP by State 
against the order was also dismissed and review by State against the order 
in SLP was also dismissed. Respondent gave the benefit of the order to 'A' 
but the appellants who were similarly situated like 'A' were denied the benefit 
Therefore the appellants filed petition before CAT. The CAT, despite having C 
full knowledge of the previous judgment of CAT and of Supreme Court in 
'A's' case, dismissed the petition of the appellants coming to a contra-
conclusion, relying on an Office Memorandum dated 29.05.1986, existence 
of which was unknown to the concerned officials and the same was also not 
referred in 'A's, case at any stage of the case. 
In appeal to this Court and in writ petition before this court challenging 
the c•·nstitutional rnlidity of the Office Memorandum dated 29.05.1986 it was 
contended by the appellants that the latter Bench of the Tribunal committed 
D 
a judicial impropriety in taking a contra view from the earlier judgment 
without following the rule of precedence, and that the Memorandum dated E 
29.05.1986 is not applicable because the same was neither made public nor 
the existence of the same was made known to anyone concerned with the 
controversy and because the same was violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the 
Constitution. The respondent contended that the post of Sub-Inspector in 
BSF was not equivalent to the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, since 
the pay scale of the two posts were not equal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : l. A co-ordinate Bench of a court cannot pronounce judgment 
contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it G 
to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement The manner 
in which a co-ordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an 
earlier judgment of another co-ordinate Bench of the same tribunal, is opposed 
to all princi

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