Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. On behalf of the applicants, the learned counsel Shri Manjeet Singh Reen, for the official respondents, the learned counsel Shri V.S.R. Krishna with Shri Rajender Khatter and for the private respondents, the learned counsel Shri B.S. Mainee with Ms Meenu Mainee argued the matter before us.
4.1 Since the present OAs have arisen as a consequence to certain directions issued by the Tribunal in the OA 1649/1997 (Shri Mohinder Singh & Ors vs. Union of India & Anr) decided on 9.7.2003 and the OA 1900/2007 (Hemant Kumar Swamy & Ors vs Union of India & Ors) decided on 12.12.2008, a brief background of these two decisions would be apt for comprehension of the issues involved herein. In OA 1649/1997 there were 59 applicants initially appointed as Class-IV during the period 1974-1989. They had been further promoted to class-III as LDC and Mobile Checking Clerks first on ad hoc basis (on various dates from 1981 to 1987) and subsequently on regular basis in the year 1993. The applicants were agitating claims for reckoning their seniority in Class-III from the dates of their ad hoc promotions.

5.1 A number of preliminary objections had been raised on behalf of the private respondents questioning the maintainability of the O.A. Reacting to the basic plea of the applicants of not having been heard before the aforesaid judgments of the Tribunal had been passed, the learned counsel, Shri B.S. Mainee would contend that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajbir Singh & Ors vs Union of India & Ors {(1992) 19 ATC 315} where the issue involved was impleadment of parties likely to be affected adversely was not required. It would further be argued that while giving effect to the revised seniority as per the decision of the Tribunal all concerned had been informed and a Show Cause Notice had been issued in the year 2004.

Shri B.S. Mainee would also submit about the present OA being barred by limitation as subsequent to the decision in Mohinder Singhs case, the seniority list had been revised in the year 2004.

5.2 Another ground taken would be that the applicants in the OA 1978/2010 (Balvinder Singh & Ors) had been parties to the compromise affected by J.K. Chadda & Ors to the revised seniority list after the decision in Mohinder Singhs case and had withdrawn their writ petition. Thus, as per the learned counsel they were now precluded from raising the same issues through the instant OAs. These preliminary objections would be stoutly rebutted by the applicants learned counsel Shri Manjeet Singh Reen. It would be submitted that the law laid down in Rajbir Singhs case had undergone a sea change in subsequent judgments. In support, a number of judgments would be relied upon viz. H.P. State Electricity Board vs K.R. Gulati {(1999) 1 SLJ SC 41}; State of Bihar & Ors vs Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr (JT 2000 (5) SC 389}; Smt. Meena Sanpal vs Union of India & Ors (OA No.2485/2002 decided on 22.5.2003); and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Ernakulam of the Tribunal in K.M. Pradeep & Ors vs Union of India & Ors reported in 2002 (3) SLJ CAST 46).

6.1 While arguing the case, the learned counsel for the private respondents, Shri B.S. Mainee would also make a submission that the basic issue involved pertained to applicability of the provision of Para 216 of the IREM Vol. I to the facts of the case. It would also be sought to be driven home by the learned counsel that the decision of the Tribunal in the OA 1649/1997 had been rendered in the light of several judicial rulings by the Apex Court including that of the Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association (supra) and the same could not be a subject of challenge again.