UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus SCHAN LAL SAYAL & ORS.
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 948, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 948 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
SCHAN LAL SAYAL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4389 of 2010) 
JANUARY 21, 2015 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Service Law - Promotion - From the post of Junior 
C Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer - Criteria for 
drawing the select list for promotion - Order of passing 
departmental qualifying examination or the relevant 
recruitment order of entry -
This Court by order dated 
08.04.1986 held that order of passing departmental qualifying 
D examination should be the criteria for drawing the select list 
- Subsequently, this Court in *Madras Telephones Scheduled 
Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association case 
held that the order of recruitment/order of entry should be the 
criteria for promotion -
Thereafter, in **Union of India v. 
E Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes 
Social Welfare Association this Court held that the persons 
who had already got the benefit by virtue of the judgments in 
their favour, would not suffer and their promotion already made 
would not be interfered with - Reiteration of the said position 
F - Meanwhile pursuant to order dated 08.04.1986, claims of 
the respondents 1 to 511 along with thousands of similarly 
situated Junior Engineers dealt with by the appellant-institution 
- 17 Lists drawn and their seniority determined in the year 
1993 -
Their rights upheld by the tribunal and by the 
G impugned orders of the various
High Courts - However, in the 
year 2000, the appellant reversed the seniority of all those 
who were covered by the Lists drawn in the year 1993 -
Different set of officers favoured with seniority and promotions 
- Tribunal interfering with the action of the appellant - Said 
H 
948
UNION OF INDIA v. SCHAN LAL SAYAL 
949 
order upheld by the High Courts - Interference with - Held: 
A 
Not called for - Appellant not justified in reversing the seniority 
and subsequent promotions of all those who were covered by 
the 17 Lists drawn in the year 1993 - Since several thousand 
employees are involved and in order to balance the rights of 
both the groups, an independent Expert Committee is 
8 
constituted which would be headed by a retired Judge of the 
High Court, with the assistance of a retired Member of the 
Central Administrative Tribunal based on the principles laid 
down in the various judgments. 
*Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes 
C 
& Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association (1997) 10 
SCC 226; **Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled 
Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association 2000 
(3) SCR 618: (2000) 9 SCC 71; Union of India v. Madras 
Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Assn. 2006 (6) Suppl. 
D 
SCR 694: (2006) 8 SCC 662; Promotee Telecom Engineers 
Forum and Others v. D.S. Mathur, Secretary, Department of 
Telecommunications 2008 (5) SCR 442: (2008) 11 SCC 579 
- referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1997) 10 sec 226 
Referred to 
2000 (3) SCR 618 
Referred to 
2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 694 Referred to 
2008 (5) SCR 442 
Referred to 
Para 2, 3, 
13, 14, 17 
Para 3, 8, 
12, 13, 14, 17 
Para 5, 6, 7, 
14, 20 
Para 6, 7, 
14, 20 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
4389 of 2010. 
E 
F 
G 
From the Judgment
and Order dated 12.08.2008 of the 
H
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Writ Petition 
No. 13 of 2007. 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 5008, 8929-8945 of 2012, 6769, 9348 of 2013, 
B 1454, 1657, 1456, 1457-1459, 1460-1462 & 1453 of 2015 
R. 0. Agrawala, Nidhesh Gupta, V. Giri, J. S. Attri, A. K. 
Sanghi, C. S. Rajan, Ambar Qamaruddin, Gaurang Kanth, Mohit 
Kumar Shah, Pawan Kumar, Eshita Baruah, Rajshekhar Rao, 
c Liz Mathew, Gauri Puri, Sanjay Ghosh, Gautam Narayan, 
Sabarish Subramanian, C. B. Gururaj (for Legion of Lawyers), 
Sunita Sharma, Rekha Pandey, Ajay Sharma, D. S. Mahra, 
Naresh Kaushik, Lalitha Kaushik, A. Raghunath, Rani Chhabra, 
Priyanka Sony, Gautam Narayan, Asmita Singh, Dr. Sushil 
0 
Balwada, Rani Chhabra, Ms. Priyanka Sony, Manish Kumar, 
Amit Kumar, Rakesh K. Sharma, R. K. Kapoor, Rekha Giri, 
Anis Ahmed Khan for the appearing parties. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA J. 1. We 
. 
. 
shall deal with the judgment impugned in the Civil Appeal Nos. 
8929-8945 of 2012 for the purpose of referring to the facts as 
well as the date of judgments of this Court which were either 
followed or referred to or relied upon by the Tribunal as well as 
F the Division Bench. Further, the issue involved in all connected 
appeals are also identical though some of the appeals have 
been preferred against the judgments of other High Courts 
namely, the High Courts of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and 
Haryana, Jammu and
Kashmir, Kerala, Rajasthan and Madhya 
G Pradesh. There is a transfer petition seeking transfer of a Writ 
Petition pending before the High Court of Delhi to this Court 
wherein identical issue is stated to be involved. 
H 
2. The core issue pertains to the rights of thousands of 
Junior Telecommunication Officers known as J.T.O. also called
UNION OF INDIA v. SOHAN LAL SAYAL 
951 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] 
Junior Engineers to the next higher post of Sub- Divisional A 
Engineer, also known as, Assistant Engineers and the criteria 
to be applied namely, whether the order of passing a 
departmental qualifying examination or the relevant recruitment 
order/order of entry for the purpose of determining seniority inter 
se. The issue was earlier dealt with by the Allahabad High Court B 
which came to be considered by this Court and ultimately by a 
judgment of this Court dated 8th April, 1986, it was held that 
the order of passing departmental qualifying examination should 
be the criteria for drawing the Select List for promotion. 
Subsequently, by the judgment of this Court in Union of India c 
v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled 
Tribes Social Welfare Association - (1997) 10 SCC 226, this 
Court held that the order of recruitment/order of entry should be 
the criteria for promotion. 
3. By virtue of such diametrical opposite views expressed D 
by this Court in the judgment dated 8th April, 1986 and the one 
reported in Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled 
Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association -
(1997) 10 sec 226 which came to be delivered on 13th 
February, 1997, a question arose as to which of the criteria has 
E 
to be uniformly applied for effecting the promotion from the post 
of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer. In such a 
situation, after
the judgment of this Court reported in Union of 
India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled 
Tribes Social Welfare Association - (1997) 10 SCC 226, an 
F 
interlocutory application was filed in this Court viz., IA No.2 of 
1999. The said IA was disposed of along with Contempt 
Petition (C) No.121 of 1999 and connected C.A. Nos. 6485-
86 of 1998 as well as IA Nos. 4 and 5 of 1999 in the said Civil 
Appeals. The said detailed judgment came to be rendered on G 
26th April, 2000 reported in Union of India v. Madras 
Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social 
Welfare Association - (2000) 9 SCC 71 and it will be relevant 
to refer to the said judgment in the forefront as that would form 
the basis for our conclusion in this batch of cases. 
H
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
952 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
4. Relevant paras of the said judgment are extracted 
hereinbelow:-
· 
"17 ..................... In accordance with the prescribed 
procedure for preparation of eligibility list, notified by the 
Government on 28.6.1996, the Departmental Promotion 
Committee has to prepare separate lists for each year 
of recruitment in the feeder category. In other words, if in 
1958, the Departmental Promotion Committee has to 
prepare separate lists for each year of recruitment in the 
feeder category. In other words, if in 1958, the 
Departmental Promotion Committee is recommending 
people for promotion to Class II, then all the eligible 
candidates who had passed the departmental 
examination and were recruited in the year 1951 and so 
on and so forth. Once, separate lists are prepared by the 
Departmental Promotion Committee of the officers 
recruited indifferent recruitment years in the feeder 
category and the criterion for promotion being seniority-
cum- fitness, then it would create no problem in promoting 
the officers concerned. As to the inter se position of the 
officials belonging to the same year of recruitment in the 
feeder category, the procedure to be adopted has been 
indicted in para (999) of the memorandum dated 
28. 6. 1966. In this view of the matter, we are of the 
considered opinion that the judgment of this Court in Civil 
Appeal No. 4339 of 1995 has rightly been decided in 
interpreting the
relevant provisions of the Recruitment 
Rules read with the procedure prescribed under the 
memorandum dated 28.6.1966. We, however. make it 
clear that the persons who have already got the benefit 
like Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan by virtue of the 
judgments in their favour, will not suffer and their 
promotion already made will not be affected by this 
judgment of ours. 
19 ........... We have also indicated that the promotions
UNION OF INDIA v. SOHAN LAL SAYAL 
953 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] 
already effected pursuant tot e judgment of the Allahabad 
A 
High Court, which was upheld by this Court by dismissing 
the special leave petition filed by the Union of India, will 
nto be altered in any manner. This being the position and 
the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in favour of 
Parmanand Lal having attained finality, he having 
B 
received the benefit of the said judgment and having 
been promoted, could not have been reverted because 
of some later judgments and directions given either the 
tribunals or by this Court." 
(emphasis added) 
5. Having regard to the above referred two paragraphs set 
out after considering the earlier judgment of this Court dated 
8th April, 1986 and the one rendered on 13th February, 1997, 
what emerged was that the persons who also got the benefit 
at par with the appellants covered by the order of this Court 
dated 8th April, 1986; namely, Paramanand Lal v. Brij Mohan; 
by virtue of the judgments in their favour held not to be affected 
and their promotions already made should not be interfered with. 
The said position was again reiterated in IA No.16 in C.A. 
No.4339 of 1995 dated 28.09.2006 reported as Union of India 
v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Assn. - (2006) 
8 sec 662. Paras 19 and 21 of the said judgment are relevant 
for our purpose which read as under: 
"19. We, therefore, direct that such of the applicants 
whose seniority
had been determined by the competent 
authority, and who had been given benefit of seniority and 
promotion pursuant to the orders passed by courts or 
tribunals following the principles laid down by the 
Allahabad High Court and approved by this Court, which 
orders have since attained finality, cannot be reverted 
with retrospective effect. The determination of their 
seniority and the consequent promotion having attained 
finality, the principles laid down in later judgments will not 
adversely affect their cases. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
954 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
21. Having regard to the above observations and 
clarification we have no doubt that such of the applicants 
whose claim to seniority and consequent promotion on 
the basis of the principles laid down in the Allahabad 
High Court's judgment in Parmanand Lal Case have 
B 
been upheld or recognised by the Court or the Tribunal 
by judgment and order which have attained finality will 
not be adversely affected by the contrary view now taken 
in the judgment Madras Telephones. Since the rights of 
such applicants were determined in a duly constituted 
c 
proceeding, which determination has attained finality, a 
subsequent judgment of a court or Tribunal taking a 
contrary view will not adversely affect the applicants in 
whose cases the orders have attained finality. We order 
accordingly." (Emphasis added) 
D 
6. Subsequently, arising out of the said judgment reported 
in Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes 
& Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association - (2006) 8 
SCC 662 a contempt proceeding was initiated in Contempt 
Petition (C) No.248 of 2007 in IA No. 16 in C.A No.4339 of 
E 1995 in which an order came to be passed in the judgment 
reported in Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum and Others 
v. 
D.S. 
Mathur, 
Secretary, 
Department 
of 
Telecommunications - (2008) 11 SCC 579. In para 21 of the 
said judgment the following direction has been issued: 
F 
G 
H 
"21. We, therefore, direct that the respondents
shall 
rearrange the seniority in terms of the principles laid down 
in Parmanand Lal case restoring their earlier position 
and shall not put any employee over and above the 
present petitioners on the basis of the seniority in service 
in the entry year, more particularly S/Shri Belani, Biradar 
and Kulkarni shall not be put over and above the 
petitioners herein. This shall be done within 8 weeks from 
the date of this judgment." 
7. It must be stated that whatever benefit granted pursuant
UNION OF INDIA v. SCHAN LAL SAYAL 
955 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] 
•, 
to the above judgment namely Union of. India v. Madras A 
Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social 
Welfare Association - (2006) 8 SCC 662 and Promotee 
Telecom Engineers Forum and Others v. D.S. Mathur, 
Secretary, Department of Telecommunications - (2008) 11 
sec 579 can be sufficiently safeguarded while passing orders 
B 
ultimately in this batch of cases. 
8. As far as the present challenge made in these appeals 
are concerned, it would suffice for us to confine to the principle 
clearly set out in the above referred to extracted paras 17 and C 
19 of the judgment reported in Union of India v. Madras 
Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social 
Welfare Association - (2000) 9 SCC 71. 
9. Keeping the above-said principles in mind, when we 
examine the judgment in these main appeals what is required 
D 
to be noted is the order of the Tribunal dated 28th February, 
1992 of the Punjab Bench of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal. Subsequent to the confirmation of the judgment of the 
Allahabad High Court by the order of the Supreme Court dated 
8th April, 1986, the private respondents herein namely, 
E 
respondent Nos. 1 to 512 approached the Tribunal seeking for 
extension of the very same benefit which was conferred on 
similarly situated persons covered by the order of this Court . 
dated 8th April, 1986. When the Tribunal was dealing with their 
claims, the
appellants herein filed an Undertaking dated 27th 
F 
February, 1992 which was as under:-
" The anomaly in seniority of TES Group B has 
arisen of (as?) a consequence of implementation of the 
decision of CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 
07.06.1991 .... in respect of the petitions in the said OAs G 
which in other words is implementation of the said 
decision in respect of limited No. of TES Group B 
Officers who have gone to Hon'ble Tribunal instead of its 
implementation to the entire order of TES Group B." and 
H
A 
8 
c 
956 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 1 S.C.R. 
that therefore, in view of the "Supreme Court decision 
upholding the decision of Principal Bench, the proposal 
revise the seniority of entire TES Group B officers as per 
para 206 of P& T Manual Vol. IV is under consideration 
of the Deptt. Since the cadre of TEA, Group B exceeds 
10000, the entire exercise of collectinglcompifingl 
organisation the information is likely to take at least six 
months time. The exercise has already been initiated. 
The names of petitions would be accordingly placed, in 
TES, Group B seniority list and thereafter would be 
considered for further promotion according to revised list 
in accordance with rules, availability of vacancies and on 
the basis of recommendations of DPC." 
10. By virtue of the said specific categoric stand taken by 
the Department of Telecommunication viz., the predecessor of 
D the appellant, the Tribunal passed its order dated 28th February, 
1992 holding as under:-
E 
F 
G 
H 
"2. It is clear from what we have extracted above that 
the respondents have taken a firm decision to give effect 
to the principle laid down by the decision of the Tribunal 
which decision stands affirmed by the Supreme Court. by 
reviewing the promotions of everyone who is similarly 
situated and not confining it only to those who 
approached the court for relief. They have conceded that 
they made a mistake in limiting their attention in the 
matter of giving deemed dates of promotion
only to those 
who obtained orders from the Tribunal and ignoring the 
cses of others similarly situated only because they had 
not secured similar orders from the Tribunal. Now they 
hve realized that once the principle has been laid down 
by the Tribunal which is of general application. it is their 
duty tomake a comprehensive review in respect of 
everyone who is similarly situated whether all of them 
have obtained orders from the Tribunal or not. The 
attitude now taken which is reflected in what we have
UNION OF INDIA v. SCHAN LAL SAYAL 
957 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] 
extracted above is correct. That is the only way of A 
satisfactorily giving effect to the principle laid down by the 
Tribunal in various cases. including those enforcement 
of which has been sought in these contempt of court 
petitions. The respondents have stated that though steps 
have been initiated having regard to the fact that they 
B 
have to review the cases fo nearlv ten thousand persons. 
the exercise is likelv to take about six months' time. They 
have further stated that after the revised seniority list is 
prepared. according of further promotion on the basis of 
the revised seniority list and following the relevant rules c 
would be made on the basis of the recommendations of 
the DPC. 
As right steps have now been taken. there should 
not be any need for other similarly situated to rush to the 
Tribunal for grant of relief as they would all get relief by D 
application of the same principle. whether or not they 
approached the Tribunal and secured orders in their 
favour ... 
4. . ... A copy of this order be also circulated to other 
E 
courts in the principal bench dealing with other matters 
in which similar relief is claimed on the original 
side. "[emphasis added.] 
11. Thus, the claims of the private respondents 1 to 511 
herein along with thousands of similarly situated Junior 
Engineers came to be dealt with by the appellant and it is 
common ground that their seniority
was determined in the year 
1993, which was reflected in different lists numbering 17 
covering several thousands of employees. 
12. While that be so, after the order of this Court passed 
in IA No. 2 of 1999 reported in Union of India v. Madras 
Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social 
Welfare Association - (2000) 9 sec 71, for reasons best 
F 
G 
H
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 1 S.C.R. 
A known to the Department, the appellant took certain steps by 
which whatever seniority which was determined in the year 
1993 and covered by the 17 lists were stated to have been 
reversed and a different set of officers were favoured with 
seniority and promotions. When such a step was taken at the 
B instance of the appellant, challenges were made before the 
Tribunal by those who were aggrieved and who were part of 
the List containing 17 in number drawn in the year 1993. While 
dealing with their grievances, the Tribunal by its order dated 
26th May, 2009 passed in T.A. No. 47/PB/09, interfered with 
C the subsequent action of the appellant in having re-determined 
the Seniority of the members in the 17 Lists drawn in the year 
1993. The appellant approached the Punjab and Haryana High 
Court by way of a writ petition in which the present impugned 
order came to be passed on 25th November, 2011 holding that 
o the view taken by the Tribunal was perfectly justified and there 
is no scope for interference. Aggrieved by the said decision 
of the High Court the B.S.N.L. is before us. 
13. We heard learned senior counsel Mr. R.D. Agarwala, 
for B.S.N.L., Mr. V. Giri, learned senior Counsel for the 
E Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, 
learned senior counsel for the private respondents and after 
having perused the impugned judgment, we are also convinced 
that the ultimate conclusion drawn by the Tribunal as
confirmed 
by the Division Bench does not call for interference. We are 
F convinced that after specific directions contained in paragraphs 
17 and 19 of the Union of India v. Madras Telephones 
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare 
Association - (2000) 9 SCC 71, when the rights of the private 
respondents herein got crystallised based on the specific stand 
G of the appellant taken in its undertaking dated 27th February, 
1992 and the subsequent 17 Seniority Lists drawn by it, the 
appellant was wholly unjustified in having taken a 'U'-turn in the 
year 2000 and reverse the seniority of all those who were 
covered by those 17 Lists. When in the judgment dated 26th 
H April, 2000 of this Court reported in Union of India v. Madras
UNION OF INDIA v. SCHAN LAL SAYAL 
959 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] 
Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social A 
Welfare Association - (2000) 9 SCC 71 made a categoric and 
clear pronouncement as to how the latter principle laid down 
in the judgment of Union of India v. Madras Telephones 
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare 
Association - (1997) 10 SCC 226 should prevail without 
B 
affecting the rights of those whose cases were already 
determined and reached a finality based on the orders of the 
Courts, the appellant ought not to have meddled with their 
seniority and subsequent promotions and the benefits granted 
on that basis in respect of those officers covered by the List of C 
17 drawn in the year 1993. In the light of our above conclusion, 
there is no scope to interfere with the judgment impugned in 
these appeals. 
14. Even after holding so, we find that the matter does not 
0 
rest there. As referred to earlier, subsequent to the judgments 
of this Court which clarified the position while applying the 
judgment in Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled 
Castes & Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association -
(1997) 10 sec 226, namely, the one reported in Union of India 
v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled 
E 
Tribes Social Welfare Association - (2000) 9 SCC 71 there 
were two other judgments with reference to the very same issue 
which were reported in Union of India v. Madras Telephone 
SC & ST Social
Welfare Assn. - (2006) 8 SCC 662 and 
Promotee Tel&com Engineers Forum and Others v. D.S. 
F 
Mathur, Secretary, Department of Telecommunications -
(2008) 11 SCC 579. In fact the rights of the applicants at the 
instance of the applicants in IA 16 in CA No. 4339 of 1995 were 
considered in the judgment reported in Union of India v. 
Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Assn. - (2006) 8 
G 
SCC 662. Having got the benefit under the said order a 
contempt petition came to be filed at their instance which came 
to be disposed of as per the judgment reported in Promotee 
Telecom Engineers Forum and Others v. D.S. Mathur, 
Secretary, Department of Telecommunications - (2008) 11 
H
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A sec 579. 
B 
c 
15. While dealing with their stand it was clearly directed 
as under in paragraph 21. 
"We, therefore, direct that the respondents shall 
rearrange the seniority in terms of the principles laid down 
in Parmanand Lal case restoring their earlier position 
and shall not put any employee over and above the 
present petitions on the basis of the seniority in service 
in the entry year, more particular S/Shri Belani, Biradar 
and Kulkarni shall not be put over and above the 
petitioners herein. This shall be done within 8 weeks from 
the date of this judgment. n 
16. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for those 
0 who were aggrieved by the impugned judgment submitted that 
any orders passed herein should not affect their rights. 
17. Having noted the above features, we wish to refer to 
the submissions of Mr. Agarwala, learned senior counsel 
appearing for the B.S.N.L. who submitted that after the reversal 
E of the 17 Seniority Lists drawn in the year 1993, which took 
place in the year 2000, a different course was adopted applying 
the principle laid down in the judgment reported in Union of India 
v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes & Scheduled 
Tribes Social Welfare Association - (1997) 10 SCC 226 and 
F that such promotions effected remains in force for the past 
nearly 15 years covering not less than 10,000 employees. 
18. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submitted that even 
if the present
impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana 
G High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal dated 26th May, 
2009 is to be implemented, the same would have far reaching 
consequences affecting the rights of not less than 8000 
employees who were covered by the 17 lists drawn in the year 
1993 on the one side and nearly about 10,000 employees who 
H were given the benefit of promotions subsequent to the order
UNION OF INDIA v. SOHAN LAL SAYAL 
961 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] 
of Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes 
A 
& Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association - (2000) 9 
sec 11. 
19. On this, we heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior 
counsel for the private respondents and Mr. V. Giri, counsel 
8 
appearing for the Telecom Forum. We are of the considered 
opinion that in the interest of the institution namely, the 
appellants as well as the large number of employees whose 
grievances are to be sufficiently examined, considered and 
safeguarded with minimum disturbance in the matter of fixing 
C 
their seniority as well as promotions already granted in their 
favour or to be restored as per this judgment, a detailed 
consideration of the respective stand requires to be made. 
Since such an exercise would involve consideration of very 
many factors involving several thousand employees and in 
D 
order to balance the rights of both the groups, we feel it 
appropriate to entrust the said exercise to be carried out by 
an independent Expert Committee preferably to be headed by 
a retired Judge of the High Court, with the assistance of a 
retired Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal based on 
the principles laid down in the various judgments. The learned 
E 
counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents also 
submitted that such a course would amicably resolve the crisis. 
20. We, therefore, constitute an Expert Committee
consisting of Hon'ble Shri Justice K. Ramamoorthy, Retired 
F 
Judge of the High Court of Madras, residing at 'Prashant' D-
17, Greater Kailash Enclave-I, New Delhi - 110 048 who will 
be the Chairman and Mr. D.P. Sharma, Former Secretary in 
the Ministry of Law and Justice and Former Vice Chairman, 
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi 
G 
shall be the Member. The appellant-Department is directed to 
provide all necessary details as regards the officers/employees 
whose names were found in the 17 Lists drawn in the year 
1993 whose rights have been upheld by the Tribunal and 
affirmed by the impugned orders of the various High Courts, 
H 
as well as, the list of those officers who came to be
962 
SUPREME COURT "REPORTS 
[2015) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
subsequently dealt with and whose seniority was fixed after 
2000 i.e. after reversing the 17 Seniority Lists of 1993 along 
with all relevant Rules, Regulations and other materials which 
the Expert Committee wish to call for, for their consideration. 
We only direct the Expert Committee to ensure that the rights 
B which have been crystallised in favour of the applicants in IA · 
NO. 16 in CA No. 4339 of 1992 reported in the judgment of 
Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare 
Assn. - (2006) 8 sec 662 as well as by the judgment in the 
Contempt Petition No.248 of 2007 reported in Promotee 
c Telecom Engineers Forum and Others v. D.S. Mathur, 
Secretary, Department of Telecommunications - (2008) 11 
sec 579, shall not in any way infringed while suggesting the 
way out for balancing the rights of the two groups of employees 
referred to above based on the principles laid down in this 
0 judgment. 
21. We only direct that let both the groups be represented 
by a representative body of not more than two along with their 
lawyers on either sides in order to ensure that the Expert 
Committee is able to deal with the issue without much 
E protraction and confusion apart from the representation of 
lawyers on behalf of the appellants. It will be appreciated if the 
Expert Committee carries out the exercise and submit its 
Report to this Court within a period of six months. 
F 
22. We leave it open to the Chairman
of the Expert 
Committee to determine the remuneration for himself, the other 
member and the junior counsel which shall be paid by the 
appellant B.S.N.L. It is also left to the Chairman to appoint one 
or two junior counsel of his choice to render necessary 
G assistance for holding the proceedings as well as for the 
preparation of the Report. It is also left to the Chairman of the 
Expert Committee to decide the venue for their hearing. It is 
needless to state that B.S.N.L. should pay all their travel and 
hospitality and other expenses of the Members of the Expert 
Committee as well as their junior counsel and other assistants. 
H
UNION OF INDIA v. SOHAN LAL SAYAL 
963 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.) 
23. lntervenors who are stated to be applicants in IA No.2 
A 
in SLP(C) NO. 5145 of 2012 are given liberty to represent 
before the Expert Committee and the Expert Committee take 
their stand also into account and their grievances and if it 
requires to be dealt with and any relief to be granted in their 
favour the same may be set out or else state the grounds for 
B 
rejection. We leave it open to the Expert Committee to seek 
for any further directions from this Court if need be. 
24. IA Nos.5,6 and 7 in CA No. 1657 of 2015 @ SLP(C) 
No. 5145 of 2012 are allowed. Cause title be amended 
accordingly. 
C 
25. Leave granted in all the petitions for special leave. 
26. The appeals are disposed of as indicated above but 
the matters shall be listed immediately after six months on 
0 
· receipt of the Report from the Expert Committee solely for the 
purpose of passing appropriate orders based on the Report. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals disposed of.