Parmanand Lal vs Secretary, Deptt. Of ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 181 Del

$~12
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of Decision : January 11, 2013

+                           W.P.(C) 4639/2012

      PARMANAND LAL                               ...Petitioner
             Represented by: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Advocate instructed
             by Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate with petitioner in
             person.

                   versus

      SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF
      TELECOMMUNICATIONS                       ...Respondents
              Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Mr.R.N.Singh and
              Mr.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.9602/2012 Allowed; subject to just exceptions.

WP(C) No.4639/2012

1. The factual backdrop leading to the filing of the present petition is that the petitioner, an officer who has retired from service in the Department of Telecommunication was selected for appointment to the grade of Junior Engineer (also known as Engineering Supervisor) in Telegraph Engineering Service (Group-B) in the year 1966 and was sent for one year training at Telecommunication Centre, Jabalpur. After successful completion of training, on December 18, 1968, the petitioner was appointed to the grade of Junior Engineer.

2. In the year 1968, the recruitment to Telegraph Engineering Service Group-B was government by the Telegraph Engineering Service (Group B)

Recruitment Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the „1966 Rules‟). As per the said Rules, the hierarchical structure of the Telegraph Engineering Service (Group-B) was as follows:- <- Assistant Engineer (TES Group B) <- Junior Engineer (Engineering Supervisor). The appointment to the grade of Assistant Engineer was by promotion from amongst the eligible Junior Engineers. Eligibility was three years‟ service in the Grade of Junior Engineer and qualifying a departmental examination. An approved list of Junior Engineers who qualified at the departmental examination was required to be prepared for purposes of promotion to the grade of Assistant Engineer.

3. The officers working in the grade of Assistant Engineer became eligible to be considered for induction in the Indian Telegraph Service (Group-A) in the grade of Senior Time Scale on completion of 8 years of service in the grade of Assistant Engineer. The hierarchical structure of Indian Telegraph Service (Group-A) was as follows:- Senior Administrative Grade <- Junior Administrative Grade <- Senior Time Scale (DET).

3. In the year 1974 the petitioner qualified at the departmental examination conducted for promotion to the grade of Assistant Engineer.

4. On May 11, 1981, the respondents published a select list of Junior Engineers who had become eligible for promotion to the grade of Assistant Engineer, which list did not contain the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said list the petitioner filed a writ petition, being No.2379/1981, before the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad alleging therein that the select list dated May 11, 1981 is illegal inasmuch as it contain the names of Junior Engineers who had qualified in the departmental examination subsequent to the petitioner qualifying at said examination in the year 1974.

5. Vide judgment and order dated February 20, 1985 the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the petition filed by the petitioner. It would be relevant to note the following portion of the judgment dated February 20, 1985 passed by the High Court:-

"The facts stated above show that those who had not qualified at examination or those who qualified after the petitioner in more than one attempt and one in 6th attempt were given chance of adhoc and temporary promotion in preference to the petitioners. Persons of later years were promoted earlier including those who record in 4 days or 5 months could become „outstanding‟ or „very good‟. It shows that deliberately the petitioners were passed over with oblique intentions and motives. Even if merits was criteria yet promotions every time were made on basis of seniority after excluding those who were left over or passed over.

....

In view of above those who qualified examination earlier were entitled to be promoted prior to the promotion of those who qualified after them.....

In view of what has been stated above, it seems that without any reason or rhyme the petitioners were passed over and they were deprived of their promotion, may it be because the officers of the local level never liked that the petitioners may be promoted. Even while making local adjustment they were passed over and their juniors were promoted and neither the rule of seniority nor merit was given due consideration in making promotion and by passing the petitioners.......

The writ petitions are allowed with costs and mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties that both the petitioners may be promoted with effect from the date prior to a date of promotion of any person who passed the departmental examination subsequent to them and adjust their seniority accordingly and pay them salary and allowances accordingly with effect from the said date."

(Emphasis Supplied)

6. In the interregnum on August 29, 1983 the respondents issued an order promoting the petitioner to the grade of Assistant Engineer.

7. Since the department did not implement the decision dated February 20, 1985 the petitioner filed an application to execute the judgment dated February 20, 1985, which was registered as No.1/1985 praying therein that the mandate of the judgment in his favour was that he should be promoted as an Assistant Engineer as of the year 1977 when Junior Engineers who had qualified the departmental examination subsequent to when he cleared the departmental examination were promoted as Assistant Engineer. In other words, the petitioner questioned he being promoted with effect from August 29, 1983 and claimed a right to be promoted as of the year 1977.

8. Vide order dated January 21, 1986 the High Court allowed the said application, and relevant would it be to note certain observations of the High Court in the order dated January 21, 1986. They read as under:-

"The opposite parties have further relied upon an order dated 29-8-1983 whereby the applicant was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and posted at Bombay. A copy of the order has been filed on Annexure 2 to the objection filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Another order relied upon for the same purpose is dated 19-9-1983, Annexure1. These orders are irrelevant inasmuch as in terms of the mandamus issued by this Court the applicant is to be promoted from 12-5-1977 and not from 19-9-1983 or 29-8-1983.

.....

In view of the above the application for execution is allowed and it is provided that if no order is passed by the opposite parties within one month from today, the applicant will be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 12-5-1977 and the opposite parties shall pay to him the sum of Rs.79,100.50 P within six weeks from today."

(Emphasis Supplied)

9. Aggrieved by the orders dated February 20, 1985 and January 21, 1986 passed by the Allahabad High Court the respondents filed a Petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on April 08, 1986.

10. On June 27, 1986, the respondents issued an Office Order stating therein that in terms of the orders dated February 20, 1985 and January 21, 1986 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (TES Group „B‟) with effect from May 12, 1977.

11. On July 5, 1990 the respondents passed an Office Order promoting the petitioner to the grade of Senior Time Scale (DET) with effect from July 9, 1990 on ad-hoc and temporary basis. Thereafter on March 14, 1991 the respondents passed an Office Order promoting the petitioner to the grade of Senior Time Scale (DET) with effect from January 4, 1991 on regular basis. Be it noted here that the Office Order dated March 14, 1991 also records that one Mr.A.K.Kalia stands promoted to the grade of Senior Time Scale with effect from January 8, 1991.

12. All was well until February 4, 1993 when the respondents passed an order reverting the petitioner to the grade of Assistant Engineer in Telegraph Engineering Service Group-B.

13. Aggrieved by the Office Order dated February 4, 1993 the petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, being O.A.No.2646/1993, before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟), Principal Bench, New Delhi.

14. In order to justify its action of reverting the petitioner to the grade of Assistant Engineer, the respondents contended before the Tribunal that the

matter pertaining to the fixation of seniority of Junior Engineers had been adjudicated by the Supreme Court after noting a conflict between various judgments rendered by various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and vide order dated May 13, 1994 the Supreme Court directed the respondents to resolve said conflict and re-fix the seniority of the Junior Engineers on the basis of year of their recruitment. In terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in its order dated May 13, 1994 the respondents have re-fixed the seniority of the petitioner and due to such re-fixation, the petitioners shall stand promoted to the grade of Assistant Engineer on August 29, 1983 and not May 12, 1977.

15. Vide judgment dated April 11, 1997 the Tribunal accepted the stand of the respondents and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. It would be relevant to note following portion of the judgment passed by the Tribunal:-

"The assertion of the petitioner that the right accrued to him out of the judgment of Allahabad High Court is a vested right and that cannot be taken away under any circumstance, is untenable. One can fairly concede that he had a protected right after the Allahabad High Court decision to the extent allowed in the said judgment. But of course that cannot be understood to be an absolute right. That will have to be understood in the light of other protected rights, such as those, not considered by the court at the relevant time, and those that have arisen in favor of others from subsequent judgments. This is because every "right" creates a corresponding "duty" on others and the protected "rights" of others, in similar manner, create an added corresponding "duty" on the petitioner, which may affect the full enjoyment of his protected rights, previously accrued.

....

In any case, these matters were considered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court wherein 58 matters were considered. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court by an order dated 13.5.1994, passed an order and resolved the possible conflicts that had arisen out of the decisions of the various Benches of this Tribunal and directed the respondents to resolve the conflicts that had arisen by implementing the orders of various courts by the respondents. It is to be noted that the decision of this Tribunal which necessitated the respondents to review the seniority position of the entire cadre exceeded ten thousand persons; it was bound to take time and the respondents were duty bound to do justice to all the parties and it cannot be stated that the applicant will have a right of precedence, just because the decision from the Allahabad High Court was given prior in time and it was first implemented. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court gave specific directions by holding that the ratio of the decision of the Allahabad High Court‟s judgment is good law and constitute precedence to be followed in similar cases and the contention of the respondents here is that the respondents have applied the ratio of the Allahabad High Court decision to all the affected equally and brought out the new seniority list accordingly.

...

In view of the findings recorded above and in view of the considerations and directions issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court by order dated 13.5.1994, we are of the view that the present application lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs."

16. Aggrieved by the order dated April 11, 1997 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court and upon leave being granted was registered as CA No.6485-86/1998. Allowing the appeal vide order dated April 26, 2000 the Supreme Court observed as under:-

"CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6485-86 of 1998:

These appeals by Parmanand Lal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal

dated 11th April, 1997. Said Parmanand Lal had approached the Tribunal, challenging the order of reversion dated 4.2.1993 and the basis of said reversion was refixation of seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer, because of some judgments of different Tribunals and because of some Judgments of this Court. We have considered this question in great detail and we have held that the question of seniority in the feeder cadre of Junior Engineers, when persons belonging to the same recruitment year are recommended, has to be decided in accordance with paragraph (iii) of memorandum dated 28th of June, 1966 and in accordance with the statutory recruitment rules with Appendix attached thereto for promotion to the posts in Group "B" service, separate list has to be made in respect of each recruitment year. We have also held that after promulgation of the recruitment rules, the administrative instructions contained in paragraph 206 of the P & T Manual, will have no force. We have also indicated that the promotions already effected pursuant to the Judgment of Allahabad High Court, which was upheld by this Court by dismissing the special leave petition filed by the Unioin of India will not be altered in any manner. This being the position and the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in favor of Parmanand Lal having attained finality, he having received the benefit of the said Judgment and having been promoted, could not have been reverted because of some latter Judgments and directions either given by the Tribunals or by this Court. On the admitted position that the applicant Parmanand was reverted by order dated 4.2.93 because of certain direction given by some other Tribunals, deciding the principle of re-fixation of seniority and it is on that basis an order of reversion was passed, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the order of reversion is untenable and unjustified on the grounds on which the said reversion has been passed, and as such cannot be sustained in law. We make it clear that the seniority of Parmanand in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, fixed on the basis of the directions of Allahabad High Court, after dismissal of SLP against the same by this court is not liable to be altered by virtue of a different interpretation being given for fixation of seniority by different Benches

of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is erroneous and we quash the same and allow the civil appeals filed by the said Parmanand Lal.

After closure of the arguments, an application has been filed on 18th of April, 2000 by Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum, New Delhi through its President, seeking intervention in the matter, has prayed for an opportunity of being heard. It is not possible to re-hear the matter again. The prayer accordingly stands rejected.

All these appeals and applications are disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs."

(Emphasis Supplied)

17. Thereafter on November 16, 2000 the respondents passed an Office Order recording therein that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted to the grade of Assistant Engineer/TES Group „B‟ with effect from May 12, 1977.

18. In the meantime, Telegraph Engineering Service (Group-B) and Indian Telegraph Service (Group-A) were renamed as Telecommunications Engineering Service (Group-B) and Indian Telecommunications Service (Group-A) respectively. In the year 1992 the pre-existing Rules stood repealed by the Indian Telecommunications Service (Group-A) Recruitment Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the „1992 Rules‟). As per the 1992 Rules, the hierarchical structure of Indian Telecommunications Service (Group-A) was as follows: - Adviser <- Chief General Manager <- Senior Administrative Grade <- Junior Administrative Grade (Selection Grade) <- Junior Administrative Grade <- Senior Time Scale <- Junior Time Scale. The officers working in the grade of Assistant Engineer became eligible to be considered for induction in the Indian Telecommunications Service Group-A in the grade of Junior Time Scale on completion of 3 years of service in the grade of Assistant Engineer. The officers working in the grade of Junior Time Scale became eligible to be

considered for promotion to the grade of Senior Time Scale on completion of 4 years of service in the grade of Junior Time Scale. The officers working in the grade of Senior Time Scale became eligible to be considered for promotion to the grade of Junior Administrative Grade on completion of 5 years of service in the grade of Senior Time Scale.

19. In the year 2005, the petitioner yet again filed an application before this Tribunal inter-alia contending therein that he should have been deemed to have been promoted to the grade of Senior Time Scale with effect from July 9, 1990 and that he should be promoted to the Junior Administrative Grade with effect from May 11, 1990 i.e. the date when his junior Mr.A.K.Kalia, an officer who was directly recruited to the grade of Junior Time Scale in the year 1986, was promoted to the Junior Administrative Grade, which application was dismissed vide judgment dated April 9, 2008.

20. Aggrieved by the judgment dated April 21, 2009 the petitioner filed a writ petition, being W.P. (C) No.3702/2008, before a Division Bench of this Court, which petition was disposed of by this Court in the following terms vide order dated April 21, 2009:-

"3. By predicating on the aforesaid Memo, the petitioner submits that since he was earlier treated as TES Group „B‟ on regular basis w.e.f. 29.08.1983, this is the date shown in the list of Officers of the Respondents of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication (popularly known as Blue Book), the grievance is that in spite of the aforesaid Memorandum as per which his date of promotion to TES Group „B‟ on regular basis was treated w.e.f. 12.05.1977, neither any amendment was made in the Blue Book/Seniority List nor this date was mentioned for the purpose of his further promotion. Had it been, the petitioner would have been treated as regular STS officer from an earlier date than the date from which the respondents are treating him to be promoted to the post of STS officer on regular basis. He also submitted

that if the date of promotion i.e., 12.05.1977 as TES Group „B‟ is to be taken into consideration, he would definitely be senior to Mr. Kalia. Even when Mr. Kalia was appointed against Direct Quota in 1986 as JTS of ITS Group „A‟ treating 12.05.1977 as the date on which the petitioner was promoted as TES Group „B‟ on regular basis, he would have got promotion to ITS Group „A‟ before 1986. We find that the Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter.

4. Since the petitioner has retired from service, it is not necessary to remit the case back to the Tribunal. Instead we direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for further promotion to TES Group „B‟ treating the petitioner to have been promoted to the said post from regular post w.e.f. 12.05.1977. On this basis, if he gets promotion to ITS Group „A‟ before 1986 when Mr. Kalia was appointed as a direct recruit to the said post, the petitioner may be considered for promotion to JAG, vis-à-vis, Mr. Kalia. Necessary consideration in this behalf would be met within a period of three months and speaking orders be passed.

5. This writ is disposed of in the aforesaid terms." (Emphasis Supplied)

21. In compliance with the directions passed by this Court in the order dated April 21, 2009, the respondents issued the order dated September 2, 2009, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

"2. In view of the above directions of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi, your case for further promotion from TES Group-B to ITS Group-A taking into account your promotion in the grade of TES Group-B w.e.f. 12/05/77 has been considered and the followings have been observed:-

(i) Your seniority in the grade of TES Group-B was fixed in accordance with the judgment dated 20/02/85 in WP No.2739/1981 of Hon‟ble High court of Allahabad. While your seniority was fixed on the basis of qualifying year, the seniority of other officers of TES Group-B was fixed on basis on the basis of year of recruitment. Subsequently on receipt similar judgments from various

Tribunals/courts, the seniority of the entire cadre of TES Group-B was revised on the basis of qualifying year. Consequently you became junior to other officers of TES Group-B and you were reverted from local officiating promotion in STS Grade.

(ii) Against your reversion and refixation of seniority, you had filed OA No.2646/93 before Hon‟ble CAT, Principal Bench, which was dismissed vide order 11/04/97. You had filed CA No.6485-86 of 1998 in the Hon‟ble Supreme Court against the said judgment of Hon‟ble Tribunal. These Civil Appeals alongwith the Civil Appeal No.4339 of 1995 was decided by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 26/04/2000. In these Civil Appeals the Hon‟ble Apex Court had laid down the principle for eligibility list for promotion from JTO‟s grade to TES Group-B.

(iii) In compliance of the order dated 26/04/2000 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, your seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (TES Group-B) was also refixed vide Respondents‟s letter No.15-32/2000-STG.II dated 22/12/2000. This seniority was also in accordance with the judgment dated 20/02/85 of Hon‟ble High Court of Allahabad High Court and also taking into account your promotion in TES Group-B w.e.f. 12/05/1977. In the seniority list revised in accordance with the judgment dated 26/04/2000, you were placed at seniority No.161 in Seniority List no.1 of TES Group-B while you were placed at Seniority No.5376 in seniority list No.7 issued in accordance with the principles laid down by Hon‟ble High Court of Allahabad and in pursuance of Hon‟ble CAT decision in the matter.

(iv) In accordance with the revised seniority in the grade of TES Group-B vis-à-vis the provisions of recruitment rules of ITS-Group-A you were considered for promotion to JTS of ITS Group-A by the DPC held in UPSC. You have been promoted to JTS of ITS Group-A against the vacancies of the year 1996 w.e.f. 17/07/2002 as per the recommendation of the DPC.

(v) As regards your claim for regular promotion to STS of ITS Group-A w.e.f. 09/07/90, it is stated that you were promoted to JTS of ITS Group-A, which is the feeder

grade for promotion STS of ITS Group-A, with effect from 17/07/2002 and as such your claim for regular promotion to STS w.e.f. 09/07/90 is without any basis. Further, as regards your claim for promotion to JAG before Shri A.K. Kalia, it is intimated that Shri Kalia is a direct recruit ITS officer of 1986 Batch whereas you have been promoted to JTS of ITS Group-A on regular basis against the vacancies of 1996 w.e.f. 17/07/2002. Further, you have not been promoted to STS of ITS Group-A on regular basis, which is the feeder grade for promotion to JAG of ITS Group-A.

3. In view of the position explained in Para 2 above, there is no merit in your claim for promotion to JAG of ITS Group-A with reference to Shri A.K. Kalia."

(Emphasis Supplied)

22. Aggrieved by the issuance of the order dated September 2, 2009 the petitioner filed another application, being O.A.No.1320/2011, before the Tribunal. Vide impugned judgment dated December 21, 2011 it has been held by the Tribunal that:- (i) the claim of the petitioner that he is senior to Mr.A.K.Kalia is misplaced for the reason the petitioner was promoted to the grade of Junior Time Scale against the vacancy of the year 1996-1997 whereas Mr.A.K.Kalia was directly recruited to said grade in the year 1986; (ii) the petitioner was declared fit for promotion to the grade of Junior Time Scale against the vacancy for the year 1996-1997 but was appointed to said grade only on July 17, 2002 due to the delay in holding of DPC by the respondents; (iii) the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the delay in holding of DPC by the respondents and in that view of matter he should be treated to be promoted to the grade of Junior Time Scale in the year 1996-1997 and (iv) if the petitioner is treated to have been promoted to the grade of Junior Time Scale in the year 1996-1997 he would have become eligible to be considered for promotion to the grade of Senior Time Scale for as per Rules of 1992 an officer working in the grade of Junior Time Scale becomes eligible for promotion to the grade of Senior Time

Scale on completion of 4 years of service in grade of Junior Time Scale.

But, the Tribunal held:-

"9. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the statutory Recruitment Rules, 1992, applicable in the case we are of the considered opinion that the applicant has been inducted to JTS of ITS Group „A‟ for the year 1996-1997. Thus, we direct the respondents to consider the applicant‟s year of induction to JTS as 1996-1997 and examine whether he would be eligible to be notionally promoted to the next higher posts of STS and JAG as per law and if the decision of the Competent Authority goes in favor of the applicant, he would be entitled to the consequential retirement benefits. Let the exercise as ordained in the above directions be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The applicant shall be provided a copy of such a decision within the said period."

23. We may highlight that the matter in issue before us pertains to the direction that the petitioner would be treated as having been inducted in the JTS Scale as of the year 1996-97.

24. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated December 21, 2011 passed by the Tribunal the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

25. With the assistance of the counsel appearing for the parties we have perused the records of the case and would record our gratitude to the learned senior counsel Ms.Jyoti Singh as also Ms.Saahila Lamba for the reason the petitioner was granted the benefit of a Legal Aid counsel who chose not to appear and only yesterday we had requested Ms.Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate and Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate to render assistance to us for today and overnight the learned counsel have been able to distill afore-noted facts which show that the writ petitioner had to litigate at least seven times. The record was bulky.

25. The facts noted by us herein above would reveal that the petitioner was directly recruited in the grade of Junior Engineer in the Telegraph Engineering Service Group-B on December 18, 1968.

26. Between the years 1981 to 1986 the petitioner fought a battle for fixation of his seniority in the grade of Assistant Engineer in the Telegraph Engineering Service Group-B. Vide orders dated February 20, 1985 and January 21, 1986 the Allahabad High Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner to have been promoted to the grade of Assistant Engineer with effect from May 12, 1977.

27. At that time, the recruitment to the Indian Telegraph Service Group- A was governed by the Rules of 1966 and in the year 1992 the very cadre was reconstituted and new Rules 1992 came into effect. As per the new Rules the initial constitution of the service required an officer working in the grade of Assistant Engineer in the Telegraph Engineering Service Group-B to be treated as eligible for induction in the Indian Telegraph Service in the grade of Senior Time Scale on completion of 8 years of service in the grade of Assistant Engineer.

28. But before that as directed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Supreme Court, treating him to have been promoted to the grade of Assistant Engineer with effect from May 12, 1977 the respondents inducted the petitioner in the Indian Telegraph Service Group- A in the grade of Senior Time Scale on July 9, 1990 on ad-hoc basis. On March 14, 1991 the petitioner was regularized in the grade of Senior Time Scale.

29. In the year 1992, 1966 Rules were repealed by the 1992 Rules. As per 1992 Rules, an officer working in the grade of Assistant Engineer in the Telegraph Engineering Service Group-B becomes eligible for induction in

the Indian Telegraph Service in the grade of Junior Time Scale on completion of 3 years of service in the grade of Assistant Engineer.

30. At this juncture, it would be most significant to note that the petitioner stood inducted in the Indian Telegraph Service Group-A in the grade of Senior Time Scale on regular basis in the year 1991 i.e. prior to coming into force of the 1992 Rules.

31. Then came February 4, 1993 when the respondents reverted the petitioner to the grade of Assistant Engineer in the Telegraph Engineering Service Group-B.

32. On April 26, 2000 the Supreme Court put quietus to the matter of fixation of seniority of the petitioner in the grade of Assistant Engineer by holding that the petitioner would be deemed to have been promoted to the grade of Assistant Engineer with effect from May 12, 1977.

33. When the Supreme Court quashed the reversion order dated February 4, 1993 and ordered that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted to the grade of Assistant Engineer with effect from May 12, 1977, the action of the respondents of inducting the petitioner in the Indian Telegraph Service Group-A in the grade of Senior Time Scale treating the date of promotion of the petitioner to the grade of Assistant Engineer as May 12, 1977 prior to the passing of the reversion order dated February 4, 1993 stood revived. Thus, as a necessary corollary to the order dated April 26, 2000 passed by the Supreme Court, the respondents should have (again) inducted the petitioner in the Indian Telegraph Service Group-B in the grade of Senior Time Scale on regular basis with effect from March 14, 1991.

34. However, the records of the present case show that the same was not done by the respondents. Instead, the respondents inducted the petitioner in

the Indian Telegraphic Service Group-A (now known as Indian Telecommunications Service Group-A) in the grade of Junior Time Scale with effect from July 17, 2002, forgetting that the petitioner stood inducted in the Indian Telegraph Service Group-A in the grade of Senior Time Scale in the year 1991 prior to the issuance of reversion order dated February 04, 1993 and date of coming into force of the 1992 Rules.

35. Instead of highlighting the above error committed by the respondents before the Tribunal and this Court, the petitioner went round and round and complicated his case by seeking to have his seniority fixed in the Junior Administrative Grade by projecting that he was senior to Mr.A.K.Kalia in the grade of Junior Time Scale, forgetting that he i.e. Mr.A.K.Kalia stood inducted in service as a direct recruit in the year 1991.

36. In view of above discussion, we direct the respondents to treat the petitioner to have been inducted in the Indian Telegraph Service Group-A (now known as Indian Telecommunications Service Group-A) in the grade of Senior Time Scale on regular basis with effect from March 14, 1991 and determine the eligibility of the petitioner for further promotions on said basis. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and upon superannuation the pension with respect to the salary he would have earned in the promotional post.

37. The writ petition is allowed in above terms.

38. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE JANUARY 11, 2012 //dkb//