Delhi High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) Thru Drm Kota ... vs Hari Prasad on 26 February, 2007
Author: M Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal, A Suresh
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition is taken up for final hearing. This writ petition challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 19th August 2004.
2. The chequered history of this case is that the Respondent was appointed as Casual Labour on 23.11.1981 and was awarded temporary status on 01.01.1984 as Khallasi. He was appointed to the post of Khallasi in Ratlam on regular basis on 07.02.1987 after qualifying the Trade Test. A Trade Test was conducted in the year 1993 for promotion to the Electric Grade-II which the respondent qualified on 10.05.1994. The seniority list prepared on the basis of information given by the officials including the Respondent showed his seniority at Sl. No. 44 whereas Shri Om Prakash and Satya Pal Singh were shown in the Seniority List at Sl. No. 53 and 54. This seniority list was cancelled by the Petitioners vide order dated 24.05.1994 resulting into cancellation of the Respondent's promotion to the post of Electric Fitter Grade-II and filing of OA No. 2677/1996. This O.A. was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 01.05.2000. While quashing the seniority list dated 09.11.1993 following directions were issued by the Tribunal:
We direct that Respondents to give adequate notice to the applicant and after hearing him, pass appropriate orders with regard to the seniority of the applicant in the post of Electric Fitter Grade-III. This will be done within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Respondents are directed to continue the applicant in the promoted post, Electric Fitter Grade-II as per the promotion order dated 10.05.1994.
3. After complying with the order of the Tribunal dated 11.10.2000, the Petitioner, while holding the seniority of the Respondent with effect from 07.02.1987 in Grade-III restored the promotion of the Respondent as Electric Fitter Grade-II and he was given proforma promotion from 10.05.1994 and 29.01.1998 with actual payment from the later date.
4. Applicant's representation for promotion to Group-I was not given any heed to by the Respondent and therefore he filed O.A. No. 155/2003. This O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 20.06.2003 with the directions to the Petitioners to dispose of the representation of the Respondents. After considering the representation of the Respondent, the Petitioners were pleased to reject the same. This resulted into filing of the O.A. No. 2455/2003. The Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 19th August, 2004 observed as under:
(a) Even though the seniority of the applicant was corrected from 7.2.87, his promotion, which had been cancelled by an order dated 24.5.94, was restored (resorted) (sic) to him in Grade II by respondent's order dated 11.10.2000.
(b) Consequently, the applicant in Grade II was senior to the persons who were appointed later.
(c) Therefore, for consideration of Fitter Grade-II, the aforesaid factors have to be considered and once respondent was permitted in Grade-II from 10.5.94, the petitioner was estopped from taking contrary view in respect of the seniority of the applicant.
(d) On the restoration of the seniority, applicant acquired his position by promotion from 10.5.94 which was found in order.
(e) In this view of the matter the respondents are estopped from taking a contrary stand to the aforesaid position.
5. With the above findings, the OA was partly allowed with the directions to the Petitioner to consider the Respondent's case for promotion to the post of Electrician Grade-I from due date with accord of consequential benefits. Challenging this order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent obtained seniority by giving false information regarding his date of appointment as Khallasi with effect from 01.01.1984 and not 07.02.1987, the actual date on which he was regularized as Khallasi in Ratlam and that he was not eligible for promotion in the Group of Fitter Grade-II and on the basis of the said wrong information trade test was conducted and he was promoted on 10.05.1994 and Respondent was correctly placed below Shri Mahesh Kumar at Serial No. 272 vide seniority list dated 9.11.1993 and could not have been considered for promotion to Fitter Grade-I and his representation was rightly rejected. In our view, the above issue already stood decided by the decision of CAT in O.A.2667/96 by its judgment dated 1st May 2000 which having become final was complied with by the Petitioner. Consequently it is not open to the Petitioner to reopen the issue of seniority without assailing or having got reviewed the judgment of the CAT in OA No. 2667/1996.
7. In this view of the matter, since the issue already stood decided it cannot be reopened particularly in there collateral proceeding and accordingly no interference is called for with the impugned judgment of the CAT and the writ petition is dismissed and stands disposed of along with CM 2869/05.
