CWP No. 13055 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13055 of 2011 Date of Decision: July 25, 2011 Union of India and others …Petitioner Versus CAT and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Central Govt. Sr. Panel Counsel for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition preferred by Union of India and its officers is directed against the order dated 28.9.2010 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). The original applicant-respondents firstly filed OA No. 734-HR-2002 before the Tribunal, which was decided on 07.08.2002 (A-1). Placing reliance on letter dated 01.05.2000 issued by the Army Headquarters, Engineer-in-Chief's Branch DGQ PO, New Delhi. The Tribunal issued directions to the petitioner-Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters that he would personally look into the matter and pass appropriate orders with regard to the fixation of seniority of CWP No. 13055 of 2011 -2- the direct appointees in the light of the Army Headquarters' letter dated 01.05.2000 (A-8). In pursuance of the time bound directions given by the Tribunal, the original applicant-respondents were given seniority on the basis of merit determined by the recruiting agency in as much as those who were appointed as a result of earlier selection were considered senior to those appointed as a result of subsequent selection. As a consequence of passing order on 22.07.2003 (A-3), a seniority list was also released on 12.08.2004 (A-4). The original applicant-respondents once again approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 126-PB -2009 with a variety of prayers but the Tribunal accepted only one prayer that once the original applicant-respondents had been found to be higher in order of merit and their inter se seniority has been fixed by the petitioner then they were not entitled to the arrears of pay but were entitled to fixation of their pay on the premise that persons junior to them were given higher pay. The directions issued by the Tribunal are discernible from the perusal of para 7, wherein the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to fix the pay of the original applicant- respondents with increments from time to time at par with their junior like Shri Rajan Bombey on notional basis. It has been clarified that original applicant-respondents would start getting pay only from the date they had actually joined their duties with arrears thereon upto date and benefit of counting of such service towards eligibility for grant of benefit of ACP etc. 2. Notice of motion. CWP No. 13055 of 2011 -3- 3. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of the caveator-respondents Nos. 1, 5 to 7 and Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate who is also present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of controversy involved and with their consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the motion stage. 5. It has remained undisputed that the Tribunal while disposing of OA No. 734-HR of 2002, had issued directions on the basis of letter dated 01.05.2000 asking the Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters Kashmir House, New Delhi to personally look into the matter and determine the seniority of the direct recruits-applicants. It in terms meant that the inter se seniority was to be fixed by following the principle that those who are appointed as a result of earlier selection were to rank senior to those who are appointed as a result of subsequent selection. In other words the earlier batch was to rank senior to the batch selected later on. On the basis of the aforesaid directions, the petitioners have passed an order dated 21.07.2003 and also issued All India Seniority List of JE (A-4) on 12.08.2004. As a consequence of the aforesaid grant of seniority, the original applicant-respondents admittedly ranked senior to those who were given appointment ahead of them. The necessary consequence is that juniors were drawing higher pay than their senior, which resulted in filing another OA which is relatable to the CWP No. 13055 of 2011 -4- present writ petition. Therefore, there is no escape from the proposition that once a mandamus has been issued by the Tribunal then it has to be taken to its logical end and the effect of the mandamus cannot be nullified by issuing another writ. The aforesaid proposition stands settled more than 30 years ago in the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 1. Therefore, it is not possible for us to reverse the mandamus issued in the year 2002 particularly when the aforesaid directions have been complied with and the original applicant-respondents have been granted seniority. Even on equity and merit, persons who have been selected in the earlier panel cannot be given a lower place in the seniority in comparison to those who have been selected later. Therefore, we do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. The writ petition is wholly without merit. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE July 25, 2011 Atul