Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Ravi Prakash Singh on 23 February, 2016
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, Uday Umesh Lalit
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A.NOS.1-2 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. D.N0.15344 OF 2015
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAVI PRAKASH SINGH .. RESPONDENT(S)
I.A.NO. 2 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. D.NO. 16393 OF 2013
O R D E R
1. Leave to appeal under Section 31(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 is granted.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Civil Appeal D. No. 15344 of 2015 arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench New Delhi, whereby O.A. No. 141 of 2014 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by USHA filed by the respondent has been allowed with a RANI BHARDWAJ Date: 2016.04.06 16:54:42 IST direction to the appellants herein to promote the Reason:
2
respondent to the post of Havaldar on the basis of the old policy taking into consideration his seniority. Also under challenge is an order dated 13.01.2015 passed by the Tribunal, whereby Review Application No. 5 of 2015 filed by the appellants-herein has been dismissed.
4. The short question that falls for our determination is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that merger of Trades in terms of Central Government's Policy dated 05.01.2009 had taken place but only w.e.f. 30.06.2009. The controversy arises in the following backdrop.
5. There were, it appears, as many as 194 Trades in the Indian Army. An exercise to rationalize the Trade structure was undertaken having regard to the similarity in job contents and duplication with a view to reducing the number of Trades by suitably re-grouping/merger and/or deletion. The exercise culminated in the issue of a policy letter dated 05.01.2009 which, inter 3 alia, provided for deletion of trades and matters like fixation of seniority, pay and allowances, promotion and Recruitment etc. It is unnecessary to refer to all the stipulations contained in the said policy letter for answering the question that falls for determination. What is important for the present are the following two significant provisions in relation to promotion and recruitment/future intake to regrouped/renamed trades:
2(f) Promotion: Further promotion of persons remustered will be governed by the qualitative Requirement (QR) of the new trade. In respect of centrally controlled categories the promotability number in each rank will be re-worked by Arms/ Services based on new trade strength, as per ratio/percentages laid down in our letter No. B. 10188/MP-3 (PBOR) dated 25 Feb, 2005. Promotions in respect of trades other than centrally controlled trades, will be regulated in terms of the new rank wise authorisation formed as a result of merger of trades in the WE/PE. It will be ensured by the Record Offices/units that no surplus promotions are carried out.
42(h) Recruitment: Future intake to regrouped/renamed trades will be effective from 01 Apr. 2009 in conformity with our recruiting sub cycle. Demands will be placed accordingly.”
6. In Naib Subedar Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. Chief of the Army Staff & Ors., O.A. No. 150 of 2011 filed before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Bench at Lucknow, one of the questions that fell for determination of the Tribunal was whether the merger in terms of the policy referred to above had taken effect from 01.04.2009 or from any other date. The Union of India appears to have argued on the basis of the relevant record and the developments that took place pursuant to the issue of the policy letter that the merger had taken place w.e.f. 01.06.2009. The Tribunal upon consideration of all attendant circumstances and an interpretation of the terms of the policy took the view that the merger had in terms of the policy taken effect from 01.04.2009 and not from 30.06.2009 as suggested by the Government. 5
7. The Tribunal observed :
“8. The policy letter dated 05.01.2009 does not in terms mention the precise date from which the merger will become effective but it can be culled out from the scheme and language of its provisions.
Sub Para h of Para 2 provides that future intake to regrouped/renamed trades will be effective from 01.04.2009 for conformity with the recruiting sub cycle. When this clause stipulates that the future intake to renamed trades will be effective from 01.04.2009 it is implicit that the newly created trade on the basis of merger has already come into existence because the question of future intake to renamed or regrouped trade can only arise if merger had taken place. And once merger had taken place the old trade ceased to exist. In other words the new trade would come into existence only on the death of the old trade.
9. Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, Shri Alok Mathur assisted by Shri R K Singh, Central Government Counsel and Shri D.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6 relied upon para 4 of the letter dated 6 05.01.2009 which provides that all actions by concerned Directorate will be completed by 30th June 2009 and submitted that view of this paragraph the merger has taken place on 30.06.2009. It is difficult for us to accept the submission of Ld. Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. If the date 30.06.2009 is taken as the date from which merger was to become effective it would be difficult to reconcile Para 4 of policy letter with clause 'h' of Para 2 which provides for future intake to regrouped/ renamed trades to be effective from 01.04.2009. Moreover, Para 4 does not specify any date of merger. It only speaks about completion of action by concerned directorate by 30th June, 2009 which appears to mean completion of follow up action consequent to merger such as preparing the revised seniority list for the new trade etc. Para 4 does not specify any particular date but gives margin for completion of actions by 30th June, 2009. The word “by” preceding 30th June are significant. The date of merger is an important date for deciding the future career of PBOR who are affected by the merger. It is difficult to accept the interpretation that the policy gives latitude to the lower staff to effect the merger on any date at their 7 sweet will “by” 30.06.2009.”
8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Union of India preferred Civil Appeal No. D. No. 16393 of 2013, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 08.08.2013, thereby giving finality to the view taken by the Tribunal's, Lucknow Bench.
9. In the case at hand (C.A. No. D. 15344/2015), a similar question appears to have arisen before the Tribunal's Principal Bench, at New Delhi which question has been answered differently by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has in the present case taken the view that the merger had taken place not w.e.f 01.04.2009 but w.e.f. 30.06.2009.
10. When the matter initially came up before us on 08.07.2015, our attention was drawn to the order passed by the Tribunal's Lucknow Bench as also the dismissal of the appeal preferred against the said order to urge that inasmuch as 8 the impugned order has taken a view contrary to the one taken by the Lucknow Bench which view has already been affirmed by this Court, it committed an error. It was also submitted that apart from 01.04.2009, which was accepted as the date of effective merger by the Tribunal's Lucknow Bench, the Government of India was proposing a third date of such merger, namely, 01.06.2009. Looking to the confusion that arose because of the conflicting decisions of the Tribunal, we had by our order dated 08.07.2015 directed the listing of Civil Appeal D. No. 15344 of 2015 along with the record of disposed of Civil Appeal D. No. 16393 of 2013. The Union of India in the meantime moved an application for recall of the order passed in the latter mentioned appeal, in which we issued notice to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 in the said appeal has filed his reply to the said application for recall.
9
11. We have in the above backdrop heard the matter over again and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties gone through the orders passed by the Tribunal.. We are of the view that the Tribunal at Lucknow has correctly appreciated the controversy and rightly held that the effective date for merger of the Trades is 01.04.2009. In saying so, the Tribunal at Lucknow has in our opinion, correctly interpreted the provisions of the policy especially Clause 2(h) thereto extracted above. The reasons given by the Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi we say with respect have not even otherwise appealed to us. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General argued that the order passed by the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal had been brought to the notice of the Principal Bench, New Delhi in the Review Petition but the Tribunal had remained un-impressed. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the view taken by the Lucknow Bench 10 of the Tribunal had attained finality with the dismissal of the appeal preferred against the same. Apart from the fact that a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction ought to have taken note of that aspect, we are of the view that even on merits the line of reasoning adopted by the Lucknow Bench is more logical than that taken by the Principal Bench, New Delhi.
12. In the circumstances, therefore, we see no reason to recall our order dated 08.08.2013 and accordingly dismiss I.A. No. 2 of 2015. We, however, allow Civil Appeals (D.15344 of 2015) and set aside the judgments and orders dated 27.11.2014 and 13.01.2015 passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal and dismiss O.A. No. 141 of 2014.
13. We make it clear that this order shall not prevent the authorities from acting in terms of the policy promulgated by them and giving 11 benefit to all such candidates as are entitled to the same under the said policy, not only in the matter of grant of promotion against the rationalized merger trades but also in the matter of their seniority w.e.f. the date the same is due. No costs.
....................CJI.
[ T.S. THAKUR ] ......................J. [ UDAY UMESH LALIT ] NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 23, 2016.
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I.A. 1-2/2015 in Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 15344/2015
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAVI PRAKASH SINGH Respondent(s)
(For Leave to Appeal u/s 31(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and office report) WITH I.A. NO. 2 IN C.A. D 16393/2013 (For recalling the Court's order dated 08.08.2013 and Office Report) Date : 23/02/2016 These applications/appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Appellant(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, S.G. Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Adv.
Mr. G. Ramakrishna, Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Piyush Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Manglik, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave to appeal under Section 31(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 is granted in C.A...D. No. 15344 of 2015.
Delay condoned.2
The Civil Appeals (D. NO. 15344/2015) are allowed and I.A. No. 2/2015 in C.A. No. D 16393 of is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
[ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Veena Khera ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master
[ Signed order is placed on the file ]