UNION OF INDIA. AND OTHERS ETC. versus N.S. SEKHAWAT AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 14-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION OF INDIA. AND OTHERS ETC. 
v. 
N.S. SEKHAWAT AND 01HERS ETC. 
MARCH 14, 1989 
IM.M. DUTT AND T.K. THOMMEN, JJ.] 
Central Reserve Police Force-Sensitive Police Service-Duty of 
the Government to resolve dispute among members in public interest-
Direct recruits and Emergency Commissioned officers-Inter-se 
seniority-Fixation of. 
Central Reserve Police Force comprises of officers drawn from 
two channels, direct recruits and Emergency Commissioned Officers 
(ECOs). There was dispute regarding fixation of inter se seniority of 
these officers which was ultimately resolved by the Delhi High Court by 
D the judgment under appeal. The High Court by the impugned judgment 
held in favour of ECOs and directed implementation of its decision 
regarding seniority as also grant of benefits to ECOs. As a result of the 
High Court's judgment 37 direct recruits, who are at present holding 
the posts of Commandants, that is to say, 22 as Commandants (Selec-
tion Grade) and 15 as Commandants (Non-Selection Grade) by virtue of 
E upgradation of 88 posts of Commandants (Non-Selection Grade) will 
have to he reverted. Being aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, 
they have appealed to this Court, after obtaining Special Leave. 
The main contention advanced by the appellants is that as they 
were not parties in the Contempt Proceedings wherein the High Court 
F has rendered the judgment in question, that order is not binding upon 
them and as such the matter be remitted back to the High Court. To 
avoid delay that will be caused in the matter if the case is sent back, the 
Court as also the parties desired that the dispute be amicably settled. 
Accordingly both the direct recruits and ECOs held negotiations 
amongst themselves with a view to arrive at an acceptable settlement 
G and after a great deal of endeavour, they put up the terms of agreement 
before the Court. The Court thereupon gave time to the Union of India 
to consider the acceptability of the agreement reached between the 
contesting parties. The Union of India conveyed to the Court that the 
agreement was not acceptable to it though it was in favour of amicable 
settlement. It suggested two other alternatives, which were not found to 
H be favourable to ECOs. 
14 
.. 
U.0.1. v. N.S. SEKHAWAT [DUTT, J.] 
15 
l 
'!'' 
.... 
This Court considered the respective terms of the settlement and 
disposing of the appeals in terms thereof, 
HELD: Central Reserve Police Force is a sensitive force and 
there should not he any dispute and differences among the members of 
such force. It is the duty of the Government to maintain peace and 
A 
-.{, 
harmony in the force by trying to resolve any dispute among the mem-
B 
,l.-
hers of the force in public interest. [17B] 
; 
While it may he desirable that the present position of the direct 
recruits should he protected, the giving of such protection should not he 
to the prejudice of the ECOs. [17E] 
In order to establish peace and amity between the contending 
parties and for ends of justice, the Court directed that in modification 
of the judgment of the· High Court, the appeals he disposed of in accor-
dance with the terms of settlement, as agreed to by the direct recruits 
and the ECOs, set out in this Court's judgment hereinhelow. [17E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
1909-10 of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.1987 of the Delhi High 
Court in C.C.P. Nos. 82 and 176 of 1986. 
WITH 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 19110F 1989. 
c 
D 
E 
)IJ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.1987 of the Delhi High 
\ 
Court in C.C.P. No. 82of 1986in C.W. No. 44of 1975. 
F 
> .. 
K. Parasaran, Attorney General, K.K. Venugopal, F.S. 
Nariman, Gopal Subramaniam, C.V.S. Rao, P. Parmeshwaran, C.S. 
Vaidyanathan,S.R. Bhat, S.R. Setia, G.D. Gupta, Ashok K. Mahajan 
and S. Ravinder Bhat for the appearing parties. 
The judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DUTT, J. Special leave granted in all these matters. Heard 
learned Counsel for the parties. 
G 
The dispute between the direct recruits and the Emergency 
H 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11989] 2 S.C.R. 
A Commissioned Officers (ECOs) in the Central Reserve Police Force 
(CRPF) over the question of seniority has been going on for a long 
time. The Delhi High Court has, ultimately, held in favour of the 
ECOs and by the impugned judgment, the High Court has directed the 
implementation of its decision regarding seniority and grant of conse-
quentia.l benefits to the ECOs. 
B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.