THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL NO.941 OF 2011 DATED:15.11.2011 Between: C.V. Subba Reddy and others … Appellants And M. Ramesh and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL NO.941 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) The appellants are aggrieved by the order dt.9.9.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.9318 of 2007. 2. Respondent No.1 was employed by respondent No.2 as a Field Officer, sometime in 1983. He was promoted as Executive by order dt.17.7.1989 and thereafter, promoted as Deputy Manager (General) on 23.7.2001, but with effect from 21.7.1999. It appears that the second respondent introduced certain austerity measures in 2003 to overcome financial difficulties. A voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) was introduced to downsize the establishment. 3. There was some dispute the first respondent had with one Mr. Anwar Ali, with regard to his seniority but that controversy stood settled by the decision of the Supreme Court on 15.3.2007 in Civil Appeal No.1391 of 2007. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, respondent No.1 was declared junior to Mr. Anwar Ali. Under these circumstances, he became surplus and had accordingly to be retrenched under the provisions of the VRS. Accordingly, the second respondent issued an order on 21.4.2007 relieving respondent No.1 from his service on retrenchment. 4. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.1 preferred a writ petition which came to be allowed by the learned single Judge. 5. The contention urged by respondent No.1 before the learned single Judge was that in the meanwhile, restructuring of the establishment of respondent No.2 had taken place and by an order dt.29.8.2011 the cadre strength of Deputy Manager (General) was revised from 5 to 25 and the cadre strength of Executive was revised from 30 to 34. At the lower level, some posts were reduced and although the overall cadre strength of 159 was retained, respondent No.2 decided to create 55 additional posts through outsourcing. Under these circumstances, and since posts of Deputy Manager (General) and Executive were available, the learned single Judge was of the view that respondent No.1 should be taken back into service either as Deputy Manager (General) or Executive. The learned single Judge also directed that respondent No.1 will not be entitled to any wages for the period during which he was out of service but he will be entitled to count that period for the purpose of leave, increments and retirement benefits. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellants (private parties) are now before us. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that respondent No.1 has no right to continue in the post of Deputy Manager (General) or Executive, having been declared surplus as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court whereby he became junior to Mr. Anwar Ali. 8. We repeatedly asked learned counsel for the appellants to explain to us what prejudice is caused to his clients, especially since the cadre strength of Deputy Manager (General) or Executive has been increased as mentioned above by the order dt.29.8.2011. Unfortunately, no answer, let alone any satisfactory answer, is forthcoming. 9. It may be noted that respondent No.2, i.e., employer of respondent No.1 has not challenged the order passed by the learned single Judge and has accepted the order. Under these circumstances, we do not think it appropriate to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, particularly since no prejudice has been caused, or at least shown to have been caused, to the appellants by the impugned order. 10. Dismissed. __________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 15-11-2011 bnr