LexVIJAY KUMAR KAUL AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2012] 6 S.C.R. 128 VIJAY KUMAR KAUL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 4986-4989 of 2007) MAY 25, 2012 [DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] SERVICE LA w· Seniority - Delay in making claim for seniority - Effect of - Held: Claim for seniority is to be put C forth within a reasonable period of time - Belated approach is not permissible as in the meantime interest of third parties gets ripened - The acts done during the interregnum are however important factors and should not be lightly brushed aside - It becomes an obligation to take into consideration D the balance of equity in entertaining the petition or declining it on the ground of delay and /aches - In the case at hand, appellants were appointed w.e.f. 1993 and 1996 respectively on the directions issued by Jammu High Court in 1995 - Another set of employees were granted appointment w.e.f. E 1990 by virtue of directions issued in 2001 by Punjab and Haryana High Court - Claim for seniority by appellants on the basis of parity with the other set of employees rejected by courts below - On appeal, held: Appellants neither in their initial rounds before the tribunal nor before the Jammu High F Court ever claimed appointment with retrospective effect - Appellants had slept over their rights and eventually approached the tribunal after quite a span of time - In the meantime, the beneficiaries of Punjab and Haryana High Court were promoted to the higher posts - To put the clock G back at this stage and disturb the seniority position would be extremely inequitable and hence, the tribunal and the High Court correctly declined to exercise their jurisdiction - Delay and /aches - Equity. H 128 VIJAY KUMAR KAUL v. UNION OF INDIA 129 The appellants participated in a selection process A conducted by Second Field Ordinance Depot (2FOD) in the year 1984 for the post of Lower Division Clerks. However, due to ban on appointments, they were not issued appointment letters. In December 1993, pursuant to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal B (tribunal) of Jammu, appointment letter was issued to appellant no.4. The said appointment was given with prospective effect and appellant no.4 was not granted benefit of back wages and seniority. Appellant no.1 to 3 were given appointments in May, 1996 on the basis of c directions issued on 24. 7 .1995 by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. · One 'P' and others whose names had figured in the select list but were not appointed had filed OA before the Chandigarh Bench of the tribunal. The tribunal had D allowed the OA directing the competent authorify to issue appointment letters to them. The competent authority instead of appointing P and others against the vacancies in 9FOD appointed them against the vacancies of 2FOD w.e.f. 1.1.1992. On their filing OA, the tribunal directed E appointment of 'P' and others w.e.f 1.5.1985 and granted benefit of 50% of back wages and consequential benefits. The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the order of the tribunal on 12.7.2001 to the extent of grant of back wages but did not interfere with the direction F antedating their appointment and other consequential reliefs granted by the tribunal. After the said order of the High Court, the appellant submitted representations to extend to them the similar benefits on the foundation of parity. The said prayer was rejected. G The appellants filed OA before the tribunal contending that grave injustice had been done to them by the competent authority inasmuch as they were not given the equal treatment that was given to similarly H 130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A placed employees; and that their seniority position and prospects for promotion had been immensely affected. The stand put forth by the appellants was resisted by the respondents contending, inter alia, that as the appellants were not parties to the application before the Chandigarh B tribunal and were not covered by the judgment of Punja'b and Haryana High Court, they were not extended the benefit; that only those general category candidates who were placed higher in merit list were appointed prior' to them excepting one candidate who belonged to the c Scheduled, Caste category; that the appellants could not have been appointed as there was a ban and thereafter they were appointed as per the direction of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir; and that the trib
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.