LexSH. J.P.S. SAROHA AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SH. J.P.S. SAROHA AND ANR. A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. APRIL 10, 1997 (K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] B S eivice Law : Promotio1t-Tiifurcation of Depa1tment-Employees tra11sfe1Ted and posted in the other depaltment~Accelerated promotion chances in the main C depaltment-Transferred employees requesting for re-transfer 011 that growui-Tiibunal refused to interfer&--011 appeal held, no injustice has been done warranting i11te1fere11ce. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1239 of 1987. D From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.86 of the Central Ad- mi~istrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 173 of 1986. K.B. Sounder Rajan and T.L. Garg for the Appellants. P.P. Malhotra, Y.P. Mahajan and C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : E This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi made on May 30, F 1986 in O.A. No. 173/1986. The admitted position is that appellant No. 1 was appointed as a Junior Scientific Assistant, Grade-II on 30.10.1967. He was made per- manent on April 1, 1970 and was further promoted as a Senior Scientific Assistant on 1.10.1973 in Defence Research and Development Organisa- G tion. Similarly the second appellant was appointed as Junior Scientific Assistant, Grade I on 6.6.1967 and was made permanent on April 1, 1970. He was promoted as Junior Scientific Assistant, Grade I on 25.3.1971. They held all the posts while they were continuing· in Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO). Subsequently, in 1976, the Technical H 831 832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 3 S.C.R. A Committee (Engineer Stores) was constituted and it was transferred so as to be under the charge of Director General of Inspection. They were transferred within that Department and continued to be in the said Depart- ment. With effect from January 30, 1979, the Department was further trifurcated as DRDO, Director General of Inspection and Technical Com- B c mittee (Engineers Stores). It would appear that the chances of promotions accelerated in DRDO. The appellants, therefore claimed repatriation to the DRDO from Director General of Inspection. Since the respondents' requests were not acceded to, they filed O.A. in the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. Thus, this appeal by special leave. It is contended for the appellants that by fortuitous circumstances, they have been posted in the Director General of Inspection and in the Technical Committee (Engineers Stores). Since common seniority was maintained prior to the trifurcation, they had no grievance for their con- tinuance under the control of Director General of Inspection. At the time of trifurcation, though the Department called for option from Grade-I but D to grade-II Officers, no such .Option was given. The appellants said that this was against their wishes. They cannot be made to suffer the continuance in a transferee Department and, therefore, they are entitled to all the benefits of promotions. When a person junior to them in DRDO was confirmed and promoted to a higher post, the appellants claimed parity. E Having regard to the contentions, the question that arises for cansideration is : whether the non-transfer of the appellants to the DRDO is vitiated by any manifest error warranting interference? It is seen that initially D RDO and DGI were two separate operations. In respect of the service in Tech- nical Committee, personnel were discharging the respective duties assigned F to them and the personnel therein were transferred to the administrative control of the Director General of Inspection. The entire wing having been transferred, to be in the control of the Director General of Inspection, necessary consequence would be that the personnel working there would remain in the Department. It is not the case of the transfer of the employees from one Department to other Departments on option basis. G Under these circumstances, though the persons have been appointed sub- sequent to them while they remained within the charge of DRDO Depart- ment, they cannot claim that injustice has been done to them. Under these circumstances, we think that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference. H J.l'.S. SAROHAv. U.0.1. 833 The appeal is accordingly dismissed. If there are any rights given to A them and the personnel similarly situated have
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.