Afhq/Isos Sos (Dp) Association & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors

7. The case of the parties is that prior to the year 1968, the AFHQ Civil Services were governed by the executive instructions as there were no statutory rules governing the service. On 1st March 1968, the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") were framed, wherein the services are classified in the following Grades:-

9. After the constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 1985, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal and was numbered as T.A. No. 356/1985. The Tribunal by its order dated 2nd June, 1989 disposed of the said petition holding that the quota prescribed in the Rules has not broken down and the seniority between the direct recruits and promotees regularly appointed/promoted within their respective quota should be determined by the length of the continuous officiation in the grade of ACSOs from their respective appointment to the substantive vacancies under Third Schedule.

11. The Union of India, in the garb of implementing the above-said order of the Tribunal in the case of M.G. Bansal, started splitting up vacancies from the year 1992 and prepared two separate Select Lists for each year retrospectively for the grade of ACSOs. One list was prepared in respect of ACSO(DPs) who allegedly were temporarily appointed against the unfilled vacancies meant for ACSO(DRs) as per Note (2) in the Third Schedule on the basis of calendar year as against originally drawn period from 1st October to 30th September each year as provided in the Rules. It appears that prior to the implementation of the order in M.G. Bansal's case, draft Seniority List issued in 1995 was based on the principle of carrying forward of slots and ACSO(DRs) were being given about 10 to 15 years ante-dated seniority even when they have not been holding any office in the service. Some of the ACSO (DPs), namely, Smt. Ammini Rajan and others filed O.A. No. 1356/1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the redrawn Select List for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90 in purported compliance with the directions of M.G. Bansal's case. The Tribunal by its order dated 1st April, 2002, as noticed above, disposed of the said O.A. with the above-said directions.

12. The AFHQ Civil Services (DR Gazetted) Officers' Association and others filed O.A. No. 2484/2004 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 1st September, 2005 dismissed the said application holding that there is no illegality in the preparation of Seniority List. Some of the ACSOs(DRs) filed C.W.P. No. 18073/2005 before the High Court of Delhi challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 1st September, 2005 which was also allowed by the High Court along with the above-mentioned writ petitions.

The impugned seniority list of 1977 shall stand quashed to that extent. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs."

The relative seniority of the above categories of officers shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between departmental promotees and direct recruits which shall be based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for promotion and direct recruitment.

Note (1) Reservation of vacancies against the quota reserved for direct recruitment, for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Regular Commissioned Officers shall be in accordance with the rules and orders issued by the Government from time to time.

(SCC at p. 767) that slots cannot be kept reserved for direct recruits for retrospective appointments."

32. In the light of the above factual situation, service rules governing the conditions of service of employees and the settled proposition of law, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order dated 14.11.2006 in C.W.P. No.4058/2002, CWP No.5396/2002 and subsequent judgment dated 15.01.2007 in CWP No.18073/2005 of the High Court of Delhi passed in AFHQ Civil Service Officers Association v. Union of India & Ors. are not sustainable and deserve to be set aside to the extent of setting aside the order of the Tribunal in Smt. Ammini Rajan's case holding that the said order is contrary to the earlier judgment of the CAT dated 20.11.1992 recorded in M.G. Bansal's case. This view of the High Court apparently appears to be contrary and contradictory to the judgment and order of the CAT dated 20.11.1992 passed in T.A. No.356/1985 (CW 3/1978) titled Shri M.G. Bansal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. in which the impugned seniority list of 1977 stood quashed and the respondent(s)-authority were directed to implement the said judgment in terms of the observations/directions contained in paragraph 25 of the said judgment. The judgment of the CAT in M.G. Bansal's case has attained finality when two SLPs filed by the DRs against the said judgment came to be dismissed by this Court on 20.01.1995. Consequently, the Writ Petition CWP No.4058/2002 of the AFHQ Civil Service (Direct Recruits- Gazetted) Officers' Association and CWP No.5396/2002 preferred by Union of India against the order of the CAT in OA No.1356/1997 titled Smt. Ammini Rajan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. are dismissed. CWP No.62/2003 and CWP No.4458/2002 filed by the DPs shall stand allowed accordingly. CWP No.18073/2005 shall also stand disposed of in terms of this judgment. As the dispute and controversy relating to inter se seniority between the DPs and DRs has remained unsettled and is lingering over the past many years, the respondent-authority is directed to determine and settle the seniority list in strict compliance and spirit of the judgment of the CAT dated 20.11.1992 in TA No.356/1985 (CW 3/1978) rendered in Shri M.G. Bansal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. The directions so contained in the said judgment shall be carried out within three months from the date of this judgment.

33. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.