D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4898/2010 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6269/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT Union of India & Ors. Versus Muni Lal & Ors. D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4898/2010 AND Hanuman Singh Versus Muni Lal & Ors. D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6269/2010 Date of Judgment : 02.12.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr. Kamal Dave for the petitioner - UOI Mr. S.K. Malik for the respondent No. 1 – Muni Lal Mr. Kuldeep Mathur for the respondent No. 3 – Hanuman Singh BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE JOSHI, J.) By this common judgment, we would like to decide D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4898/2010 filed by petitioner Union of India and D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 6269/2010 as both of these writ petitions have been preferred against the same judgment and order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur bench Jodhpur. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 14.01.2010 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jodhpur (for Page 1 of 6 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4898/2010 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6269/2010 short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No. 304/2004 filed by respondent No. 1 - Muni Lal, whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the Original Application and quashed the impugned orders and directed the petitioner - UOI to restore the seniority of the respondent No. 1 – Muni Lal vis-a-vis respondent No. 3 - Hanuman Singh (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6269/2010) as it existed prior to the issue of letter dated 06.12.2004 (Annex.2 to the Original Application). Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are that original applicant - respondent No. 1 - Muni Lal was working in the petitioner department as Turner Grade – III. He joined the Railways in the year 1982 as Turner Khalasi and was promoted as Turner Khalasi Helper with effect from 13.07.1984 on the basis of a trade test conducted in the year 1983, whereas the respondent No. 3 - Hanuman Singh was promoted as Turner Khalasi Helper on 25.10.1991 on the basis of a trade test conducted in the year 1991. In the seniority list issued on 18.01.1993, the name of the respondent No. 1 – Muni Lal was shown at S.No.1 and that of the respondent No. 3 – Hanuman Singh at S.No.2. Thereafter in January 1998, in the letter calling for trade test for the next post, the name of the respondent No. 1 – Muni Lal was again shown above that of respondent No. 3 – Hanuman Singh. The respondent No. 1 -Muni Lal as well as Page 2 of 6 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4898/2010 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6269/2010 respondent No. 3 – Hanuman Singh were promoted to the next post of Turner Grade III on 03.05.1998. The seniority list of Turner Grade III issued in August 2000 also placed the respondent No. 1 above the respondent No. 3. However, in June 2004, the petitioner - UOI issued a show cause notice to the respondent No. 1 – Muni Lal for changing his seniority vis-a-vis that of respondent No. 3 – Hanuman Singh on the ground that the promotion of the respondent No. 3 was overlooked in the year 1984 which has now been rectified. The respondent No. 1 replied to the show cause notice in July 2004. Thereafter by letter dated 06.12.2004 (Annex.A/2 to the Original Application) the petitioner department rejected the objections raised by the respondent No. 1 – Muni Lal and declared that the respondent No. 3 - Hanuman is entitled to be placed above the respondent No. 1 in the seniority list as his date of joining the original post of Turner Khalasi is prior to that of the respondent No. 1. Simultaneously the respondent No. 3 – Hanuman Singh was called for the trade test for promotion to the post of Turner Grade II (Annex.A/1 to the Original Application). Aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions of the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 – Muni Lal filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the order dated 03.12.2004 and 06.12.2004. The petitioners strongly contested the Original Application. They filed reply to the Original Application wherein they stated that before changing the Page 3 of 6 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4898/2010 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6269/2010 seniority, the respondent No. 1 – Muni Lal was given due notice and there is no legal infirmity in the impugned orders and also took the ground that the respondent No. 1 cannot be permitted to get the benefit of an administrative error. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal vide the impugned judgment allowed the Original Application and quashed the impugned orders. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners Union of India as well as the Hanuman Singh have preferred separte writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner department reshuffled the seniority of respondent No. 1 – Muni Lal qua respondent No. 3 – Hanuman Singh for the reason that inadvertently the name of Muni Lal was shown above the name of Hanuman Singh and when this error came to the knowledge of the petitioner department, they issued the order dated 06.12.2004 while refixing the seniority of Muni Lal vis-a- vis Hanuman Singh and thus, by refixing the seniority vide order dated 06.12.2004 (Annex.A/2), the petitioners have committed no illegality or irregularity because initially Hanuman Singh was senior to Muni Lal and this inadvertance continued for 20 years, but later on after coming into knowledge of this fact, the petitioners issued the order Annex.A/2. Hence, the learned Page 4 of 6 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4898/2010 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6269/2010 Tribunal erred in accepting the Original Application of Muni Lal. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that there is provision in the IREM to refix the seniority list to remove the deficiencies in the seniority list. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 – Muni Lal defended the judgment of the learned Tribunal. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Bajwa & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 1998 SCC (L&S) 611 held that after lapse of a long period, the seniority of a person cannot be unsettled. In the said case, seniority list reshuffled even after 10 years was quashed and it was considered as an inordinate delay in making such a grievance and merely inordinate delay was considered as sufficient reason to decline to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relying upon the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are also of the view that the learned Tribunal has committed no error in allowing the Original Application of Muni Lal and quashing the impugned orders and restoring the Page 5 of 6 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4898/2010 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6269/2010 seniority of respondent No. 1 Muni Lal vis-a-vis respondent No. 3 Hanuman Singh as it existed prior to issuance of order dated 06.12.2004. In view of the discussion made above, there is no ground to interfere with the judgment and order dated 14.01.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner – UOI is dismissed. Hanuman Singh was also within the arena of parties before the learned Tribunal. He did not raise any objection to the seniority list for a considerable long time which pursuaded the learned Tribunal to reassign the original seniority to Muni Lal and the writ petition of Hanuman Singh is not on better footing than that of the Union of India & Ors. Therefore, the writ petition filed by Hanuman Singh is also dismissed on the grounds mentioned above. No order as to costs. [KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI],J. [ARUN MISHRA],CJ. Pramod Page 6 of 6