Tika Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 648 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 1st January, 2002 passed in OA 397 of 2001 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') by which the petitioner's OA was dismissed.

3. The Tribunal's order dated 1st January, 2002 arose in the following circumstances:-

(a) One Shri Radhey Shiam Bansal, who was working in the Central Hindi Directorate in the Ministry of Education, filed a civil writ petition No. 905 of 1974 in this Court, challenging his reversion/demotion in seniority. While examining the merits of the pleas of petitioner's case for reversion and mutual transfer, this Court in the case of Radhey Shiam Bansal Versus Union of India & Others in writ petition No. 905 of 1974 came to the finding that there was no foundation for plea based upon a mutual transfer and Radhey Shiam Bansal was held to have been wrongly denied his due seniority.

4. The following order was passed on 18th February, 1983 by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP. No. 905/1974:-

For these reasons, I hold that the petitioner's seniority must be taken as from 2.12.1967 when he was appointed as a regular L.D.C. I hold that his reversion from the post of U.D.C. to that of L.D.C. is illegal. He will retain his seniority at No. 5 in the Provisional Seniority List dated 24.4.1972. He will also be entitled to all the consequential benefits such as promotion, pay and allowances etc. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

5. It is not in dispute that the said order dated 18th February, 1983 has become final. In the meanwhile the jurisdiction in respect of the service matters stood transferred to CAT. The petitioner raised a similar claim before the CAT as he claimed parity with Radhey Shiam Bansal's case (supra). By the judgment dated 14th October, 1997, the Tribunal held as follows in favor of the petitioner:

6. In the result, the application is allowed. The respondents are directed to give similar benefits to the applicant as has been given to Shri Bansal, including seniority as UDC in CTB. This action shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

6. The petitioner has complained that he has not been given the same benefits as granted to Radhey Shiam Bansal.

7. The Tribunal found that the petitioner tried to enforce this order by contempt proceedings wherein it was directed that he may prefer fresh OA and accordingly this led to the filing of OA 397/2001 before the CAT which was disposed by the impugned judgment dated 1st January, 2002. The Tribunal in our view while rightly interpreting the impact of FR 17 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Ramakrishnaiah v. Union of India reported as AIR 1990 SC 166 has, however, gone to record an astonishing finding in para 7 as follows:-

7. In the O.A. applicant interalia claims that respondents are estopped from giving beyond the Tribunal's order dated 14.10.97 (supra) but respondents' action is based on FR 17 (1) and there is no estoppel against rules.

8. In our view such a finding is wholly irrational and cannot be sustained at all. Whatever be the effect of a government rule, a judgment of a lawfully constituted Court or Tribunal which has become final is required to be given primacy. It is not in dispute that the Tribunal's order dated 14th October, 1997 passed in OA 1584/1991 has become final and had granted absolute parity to the petitioner in respect of Radhey Shiam Bansal including his seniority. Consequently we are of the view that while the interpretation of FR 17 by the Tribunal may not be faulted nevertheless the findings extracted above in paragraph 7 cannot be sustained at all as they seek to annul the effect of a judgment of a Tribunal by placing the reliance upon a rule. No statutory rule or its impact can annul the impact of a binding judgment.

9. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 1st January, 2002 is set aside. The respondents are directed to give exact parity to the petitioner qua the benefits accorded to Radhey Shiam Bansal's case (supra). The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that a large portion of the benefits given to Radhey Shiam Bansal had already been given to the petitioner. We direct that the remaining benefits shall be given to the petitioner on or before 30th June, 2006.

10. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.