CTION CMP No8076 of 1988 and IA Nos
356 and 7 of 1990 In Civil Appeal No 3519 of 1984
From the Judgment and Order dated 341984 of the Delhi High Court in WP No 1144 of 1983
WITH Writ Petition C Nos
2620 59 of 1985
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
CS Vaidyanathan Ms Smitha Singh KARaja AK Srivastava Sushma Suri CVS Rao Ms CK Sucharita and Vimal Dave for the appearing parties
The following Order of the court was delivered CMP No 80761988 This is an application by certain doctors of the Central Health Service for clarification of the earlier orders passed by this Court in CA 35191984
Actually the appellants  grievance is that even though the appeal was disposed of by the order of this court dated 94
1987 and the directions given therein have been reiterated in the subsequent orders of this Court the Union of India has not given proper effect to the directions given by this Court
Briefly the appellants were originally appointed after interview by selection committees but only as adhoc appoint ees in the above service
They were appointed on various dates between 1968 and 1977
Their grievance is that dispite their long service in the Department they were not regula rised with reference to their original dates of appointment
The Union of India pointed out certain difficulties in giving effect to the order of this Court of April 1987 by filing a review petition and then a clarification applica tion but these have been dismissed
The resultant position is that all the appellants have to be regularised in Group A of the Central 112 Health Service wef
111973 or the date of their respec tive original appointments whichever is later
We may men tion here that this date 111973 is mentioned here because the appellants have now expressed their willingness to be considered for regular appointment only from this date and not from any earlier date this being the date on which the group B and Group A services were merged together by the Government of India on the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission
The only difficulty experienced by the Union of India in giving effect to the directions of this Court which now subsists is that if regularisation is granted to all the appellants doctors who have been regularly appointed in Group A after an interview by the Union Public Service Commission may get relegated to secondary positions in view of the fact that the appellants were appointed much earlier though on an adhoc basis
These regularly recruited doctors had not been heard earlier and they have now come up with intervention applications praying that any order of regular isation of the appellants should ensure that their interests are not prejudiced
This was also the anxiety of the Union of India as expressed in the counter affidavit filed in this Court
After heating all the counsel we were inclined to think that while the appellants should get their rights which were declared by this Court in its earlier orders there should at the same time be no prejudice to the doctors appointed through regular recruitment by the Union Public Service Commission
After some discussion counsel for the appel lants agreed to put forward certain proposals which would safeguard their interests and also at the same time not prejudice the regular appointees through the Union Public Service Commission
The essence of the proposal made by them is that they may be treated to be a separate category with their own seniority list and entitled to promotion in ac cordance with that seniority list the problem of conflict with the direct regular recruits being avoided by creation of an appropriate number of supernumerary posts
The Union of India is not agreeable to accept these proposals which were set down by the appellants at our instance in the form of an affidavit
The proposals of the appellants have been set down in an annexure to an affidavit filed by Dr PPC Rawani and dated 16th July 1991
However after considering the matter we are of the opinion that there is no way of rendering justice to all the parties before us except by accepting these proposals in the manner to be set down below particularly because we find that while making the propos als the appellants have also to some extent expressed the willingness to forgo certain rights that might have accrued to them in consequence of the earlier orders passed by this Court
We are of the opinion that the proposals made are reasonable in the circumstances of the case and that they do not also in any way prejudice the rights of the regularly recruited doctors
113 In view of this we direct that the following proposal be implemented by the Department by way of giving effect to the order of this Court in CA 351984 dated April 1987 and the subsequent clarificatory orders passed by this Court The directions given are as follows 1
Each of the appellants will be treated as regularised in Group A of the Central Health Service from 111973 or the date of his first initial appointment in the service though as adhoc Group B doctor whichever is later
In order to ensure that there is no disturbance of the seniority and the promo tional prospects of the regularly recruited doctors there will be a separate seniority list in respect of the appellants and their promotions  about which directions are given below shall be regulated by such separate seniority list and such promotions will only be in supernumerary posts to be created as mentioned below
a Each of the appellants will be eligi ble for promotion to the post of Senior Medi cal Officer or Chief Medical Officer or fur ther promotional posts therefrom taking into account his seniority in the separate seniori ty list which is to be drawn up as indicated above
b The promotion of any of the appellants to the post of Senior Medical Officer Chief Medical Officer and further promotional post therefrom will be on par with the promotion of the regularly recruited doctor who is immedi ately junior to the concerned appellant on the basis of their respective dates of appoint ment
In other words if a regularly recruited doctor on the basis of the seniority list maintained by the Department gets a promotion as Senior Medical Officer or Chief Medical Officer or further promotion thereafter then the appellant who was appointed immediately earlier to him will also be promoted as a Senior Medical Officer or Chief Medical Offi cer or further promotion therefrom as the case may be with effect from the same date
In order that there may be no conflict or any possibilities of reversion the post to which an appellant will be promoted whether as Senior Medical Officer or Chief Medical Officer or on further promotion therefrom should only be to a supernumerary post
Such number of supernumerary posts should be creat ed by the Government as may be necessary to give effect to the above directions
No promo tion will be given to any of the appellants in the existing vacancies which will go only to the regularly 114 appointed doctors
The appellants hereby agree to give up all monetary claims on account of revision of scales regularisation or promotion to which they would be entitled till 3110
199 1 6
Apart from the appellants there are certain doctors who fall in the same category but who had not filed writ petitions before the High Court
They have filed directly writ petitions before this Court beating Nos
2620 26591985 and intervention applications
The intervention applications are allowed and rule nisi is issued in the writ petitions of which the other parties take notice
These interveners and writ petitioner have to be granted the same relief as the appellants
It is made clear that all these applicants and petitioners will be entitled to the same reliefs as the appellants for all purposes of seniority and promotion
All monetary claims on account of revision of scales regularisa tion or promotion till 31101991 are given up by These applicants and petitioners as well
We direct that in view of the long pendency of litiga tion before this Court the Union of India should take immediate steps to implement the above directions
The directions should be given effect to latest by 31st March 1992
All the interim applications in the matter stand dis posed of in view of the fact that the main CMP itself has been disposed of
RP Matters dis posed of


Summary:
The petitioner s husband was tried under Section 302 IPC for having killed his father and step brother
The Sessions Judge convicted awarding sentence of death
On appeal the High Court confirmed the death penalty against which a special leave petition before this Court was filed and same was also dismissed
The Review Petition filed by him was also dismissed
His mercy petitions filed before the Governor of Jammu  Kashmir and the President of India were rejected
He chal lenged the order of the President of india rejecting the mercy petition before this Court in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution which was also dismissed
Another writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion was filed before the Jammu  Kashmir High Court for quashing the sentence imposed on him
The High Court dis missed the same
The husband of this petitioner the condemned prisoner was to be hanged on 26101991
The petitioner filed the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the capital punishment 104 with a prayer for the quashing of the sentence awarded to her husband
The petition was entertained by a Division Bench on 251091 and the matter was referred to the Constitution Bench for consideration staying the execution of the condem ned prisoner
Petitioner contended that capital punishment was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the Article absolutely prohibits deprivation of a person s life that capital punishment did not serve any social purpose and the barbaric penalty of death should not be awarded to any person as it had no deterrent effect that the penalty of death sentence had a dehumanising effect on the close rela tions of the victims and it deprived them of their fundamen tal rights under Article 21 of the Constitution to a mean ingful life that the execution of capital punishment by hanging was barbaric and dehumanising and it should be substituted by some other decent and less painful method in executing the sentence
Dismissing the petition this Court HELD 1
The capital punishment as provided by the law is to be awarded in rarest of the rare cases
The procedure established by law for awarding the death penalty is reason able and it does not in any way violate the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution
Hanging by neck was a scien tific and one of the least painful methods of execution of the death sentence
106 G 107 F 2
The death penalty has a deterrent effect and it does serve a social purpose having regard to the social condi tions in our country the stage was not ripe for taking a risk of abolishing it
107 C D 3
A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the law and order situation in the country has not only not improvided since 1967 but has deteriorated over the years and is fast worsening today
The present is therefore the most inopportune time to reconsider the law on the subject
107 E Jagmohan Singh vs State of UP1973 1 SCC 20 Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab  Deena alias Deen Dayal  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors etc
 1983 4 SCC 645 referred to 105